POPULATION AND STATE IN LAN NA PRIOR TO THE MID … · Population and state in Lan Na prior to the mid-sixteenth century 3 Journal of the Siam Society Vol. 93 2005 and Egerød classify

1Journal of the Siam Society Vol. 93 2005

POPULATION AND STATE IN LAN NA PRIORTO THE MID-SIXTEENTH CENTURY*

Volker Grabowsky

Abstract

This paper analyses the administrative and social systemsof Lan Na in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries with special focuson demographic factors. Tight control of manpower was crucial tothis sparsely populated, mountainous region. It is argued that thenai sip system of organising the workforce was probably introducedunder Chinese or Mongolian influence prior to the founding of LanNa. The territorial administration of Lan Na was characterised bythe panna, administrative units below the müang level. Lacking acentralised administration, centrifugal tendencies intensifiedduring the first half of the fifteenth century that eventuallyprecipitated the disintegration of the kingdom in 1558. Amongseveral factors, shortage of manpower was decisive for the mani-fold problems that Lan Na encountered during her internal crisis.

1. Introduction

The Kingdom of Lan Na emerged after the conquest of Hariphunchai byKing Mangrai (1292) and the founding of the new capital at Chiang Mai (1296).Lan Na survived and remained an independent polity more than two and a halfcenturies until the Burmese conquest of Chiang Mai (1558). In spite of consider-able achievements gained through research into the regional history in Northern

* The author wishes to thank his colleague Dr Foon Ming Liew for having translated the keyChinese sources for him and for her many thoughtful comments on this paper. I would also like tothank Saruswadee Ongsakul, Aroonrut Wichienkeeo, Renoo Wichasin, Sun Laichen, Chris Bakerand Ronald Renard for the helpful and critical comments and contributions. Special thanks go to theGerman Research Foundation (DFG) which provided support over several years. Parts of this ar-ticle are based on the paper presented at the international workshop on “Southeast Asia in the 15th

Century and the Ming factor”, Singapore, 18–19 July 2003. That paper was published, slightlyrevised, under the title “The Northern Tai polity of Lan Na (Babai-Dadian) between the late 13th tomid-16th centuries: internal dynamics and relations with her neighbours” as Working Paper No. 17of a series produced by the Asia Research Institute, Singapore.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:071

2 VOLKER GRABOWSKY

Journal of the Siam Society Vol. 93 2005

Thailand,1 our knowledge of Lan Na’s political and social structures is still ratherfragmentary. This is especially the case for the fourteenth century, which was theearly formative period of Lan Na. Though Chiang Mai is generally considered asthe undisputed administrative and ritual centre of Lan Na, this was not the caseduring the fourteenth century when the region of Chiang Rai and Chiang Saen wasin fact a largely autonomous polity. The de facto division of Lan Na is clearlydocumented in contemporary Chinese sources, such as the “Veritable Records ofthe Ming Dynasty” (Ming Shilu).2 This states that in June 1404 two “Military-cum-Civilian Pacification Commissions” (jun-min xuan-wei shi-si) were formedin Lan Na, namely Babai-zhenai (Chiang Rai and Chiang Saen) and Babai-dadian(Chiang Mai).3 Though this political division was overcome a couple of years laterand Chiang Mai successfully reasserted its position as the capital of the Lan Napolity, the old divisions re-emerged in the second quarter of the sixteenth centuryas symptoms of a general crisis which eventually led to the downfall of Lan Na inthe mid-sixteenth century.

This article proposes to analyse the administrative, social and demographicstructures of Lan Na in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, based on TaiYuan primary sources such as inscriptions and manuscripts. Such an approach mightprovide a better understanding of Lan Na’s later decline, which cannot be fullyunderstood by pointing to political developments alone.

It should be mentioned at the outset that geographically and culturally LanNa is not restricted to the eight northernmost provinces of today’s Thailand. Themajority of the Tai-speaking population of Northern Thailand, who are ethnicallyrelated to the Tai Yuan4 (or Khon Müang), are the Tai Khün and the Tai Lü‚ mostlyliving in Chiang Tung (eastern Shan State) and Sipsòng Panna (southern Yunnan)‚respectively. Their languages are very similar to that of the Tai Yuan. Chamberlain

1 Among many others, the works of Hans Penth (e.g., 1994a, 1994b, 2003), Saraswadee Ongsakul(e.g., 1993, 1996), and Aroonrut Wichienkeeo (e.g., 1977, 1995 with D. K. Wyatt) have to be men-tioned.

2 As to Ming Shilu as a historical source for South-East Asian history see Wade 1997 and 2000.3 Taizong Shilu 31.563–64 (Yongle 2, 5th month, jisi day: July 6, 1404), see also Mingshi Gao,

Chapter 189, pp. 35b–36a; Mingshi, Chapter 315, p. 8161, liew n.d.: 12–13.4 The Tai Yuan are differentiated from other Tai peoples by their own language and script, which

is distinct from that of the Siamese. The presence of the Tai Yuan people in the territory of today’sNorthern Thailand prior to the mid-eleventh century is not confirmed by historical sources. Theethnonym “Yuan” (¬«π) is not a genuine native ethnic name referring to the Tai speaking populationof Lan Na, but was originally a Siamese term for her northern neighbour. The term yuan, just likeyun, is the Burmese name for the Northern Thai and is still in use; the Pali form yonaka (re-con-verted into Thai as yonok‚ ‚¬π°) can be traced back to the Sanskrit word yavana (“foreigner”). Thisword was first used by the Indians to refer to the Greeks (“Ionians”), and was later also used forother foreign peoples such as the Persians and the Romans.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:072

3Population and state in Lan Na prior to the mid-sixteenth century


and Egerød classify them as “sister languages” under the rubric “Northern Thai”.5

Moreover, due to the close cultural, historical and dynastic relationships of the TaiKhün and Tai Lü with the Tai Yuan, one could perhaps overlook the modernpolitical divisions from ethnological points of view and consider the “culturalregion of the Tai Yuan, Tai Khün, and Tai Lü”6 as one large entity. Thus in a broaderperspective, the whole region east of the Salween River, even including SipsòngPanna, can be viewed as part of “Greater Lan Na”.

2. Centre and periphery

The historical frontiers of Lan Na, which at least under the reign of KingMae Ku in the mid-sixteenth century still ideally existed, are depicted in one NorthernThai chronicle as follows:

The realm of the king, the ruler of Lan Na-Chiang Mai, borders inthe south on the territory of Müang Rahaeng (Tak), in the east onthe Mekong, and to the west on the Salween.7

Another manuscript records the territorial demarcations of the Tai Yuan kingdom,albeit slightly differently:

The territory of Lan Na-Chiang Mai extended in the south to theland of the Lua. [...] To the east it bordered on the Mekong. To thenorth it extended as far as Müang Saen Nòi Saen Luang (south ofChiang Rung, V.G.).8

The chronicle of the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty, on the contrary, describes smallerconfines of Lan Na, as given from the Chinese perspective around the mid–four-teenth century, that is still before the incorporation of the principalities of Phraeand Nan.

In the east of the land [of Babai] is Laowo (Laos), in the south Bolebarbarians (Sukhothai), in the west Da Gula (Pegu), in the northMenggen Prefecture (Müang Khün or Chiang Tung).9

5 Chamberlain 1975; Egerod 1961: 49.6 In Thai: Khet watthanatham yuan khün lü (‡¢µ«—≤π∏√√¡¬«π¢÷π≈◊ÈÕ). Today this region with an area

of more than 150,000 km2 has a population of roughly seven million inhabitants.7 Tamnan phün müang lan na chiang mai, SRI 1981a: 3.8 SRI 85.144.05.136: Tamnan lan na lan chang, ff˚ 2/4–3/1. [tr. ΩÉ“¬°≈È”‰µ∑÷°‡¡◊Õß≈—«–·Ààßµ—¥‰æ«—πµ°

«—πÕÕ° ‡ªπ·¥πÀ—Èπ·≈ ΩÉ“¬°≈È”«—πÕÕ°∑÷°·¡à¢Õß‡ªπ·¥πÀ—Èπ·≈ ΩÉ“¬°≈È”‡Àπ◊Õ∑÷°‡¡◊Õß· ππâÕ¬· πÀ≈«ß‡ªπ ·¥πÀ—Èπ·≈]

9 Xin Yuanshi 252.12–13 (Babai-xifu), Liew n.d.: 12.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:073

4 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


The territory marked by the Salween (in the west), the Mekong (in the east), by Tak(in the south) and Chiang Rung (in the north)10 corresponds cum grano salis to themain regions of settlement of the tribal relatives of the Tai Yuan, Tai Khün and TaiLü, and also to the main regions of distribution of the Dharma script as well asBuddhist monastic culture, which certainly relies on that script. Hence Lan Na wasabove all, and in particular, a cultural concept rather than a firmly connected politi-cal unit. Lan Na consisted of a few large and many smaller müang (polities), whichwere connected via intricately knitted relationships with one another and with thecapital. The tightness and stability of relationships depended on several factors:size of population, economic potential, geographical location, historical character-istics, and kinship relations of each individual müang.

The meaning of the term müang is associated with territorial and demo-graphic dimensions of political rule. From the fact that a müang is constantlydefined by its centre follow some important considerations: two or more müangcould “overlap” with one another. The border regions and transitional regions thatare defined in such a way possessed multiple loyalties and identities. However, it isalso possible that a large müang included several smaller satellite müang. To takeone example: “Müang Chiang Mai” first of all indicates the urban centre of thetown, the wiang, and family units that lived within the city walls (the fortificationsof the town). In the broader sense the villages in the vicinity of Chiang Mai wereincluded. In an even larger context, the meaning of müang Chiang Mai includedmost of the other müang of the Ping plain (in the centre of which “Wiang ChiangMai” was located), such as Phrao, Chiang Dao, and Wiang Kum Kam. However,less often it also included Lamphun (Hariphunchai), which was seeking to pre-serve its special religious and cultural role. Moreover, Chiang Mai as capital wasthe ritual and “cosmological” embodiment of the country as a whole. It is thereforenot surprising that very often the Northern Thai chronicles use the expression “Müang Chiang Mai” as a pars pro toto for “Lan Na” and, at times, also the twinterm “Müang Lan Na-Chiang Mai”.11

In the following paragraphs the territorial structure of Lan Na with regardsto the relationships of its constituent müang to the capital will be analysed. It willbe differentiated by the example of three zones. A simplified model identifies thecore region, the outer zone and the vassal müang:

10 At the end of the thirteenth century Tak belonged to Sukhothai and after its downfall surrenderedto Ayutthaya. Henceforth, Tak, which was inhabited by the Tai Yuan and Siamese in almost equalparts, became a northern outpost of Ayutthaya. The southern frontier zone of Lan Na runs alongbetween Thoen (belonging to Lampang) and Tak. Chiang Rung, even under the kings Mangrai andTilok, was only a vassal of Chiang Mai and not regarded as a part of Lan Na.11 Thus for example in the chronicle Tamnan phün müang lan na chiang mai, SRI 1981a.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:074



a) The core region12 was under the direct control of the king. It included the capitalChiang Mai and her satellite müang13, essentially the central part of the PingRiver basin with Chiang Mai and Lamphun as the northern and southerncorner points respectively. In this fertile and productive rice-cultivating region,one of the earliest urbanised parts of Lan Na, the population was probably thehighest. The strategic importance of the Chiang Mai-Lamphun core region ascommercial centres made the region even more attractive, placing it at anadvantage over the other müang.14

In the region around the capital, the king had the work force at his direct disposal.Through the state officials appointed by the king himself the ruler was able torecruit male subjects directly for construction works and enlist them for militaryservice. Lamphun maintained her special cultural status until the end of the Mangraidynasty. Most of the kings of Nan Na undertook pilgrimages to Wat PhrathatHariphunchai.15 The Northern Thai Chronicles, in particular the religious tamnan,often mention Chiang Mai and Lamphun together in the same breath, as in thefollowing passage from the M¢las¡san¡ chronicle: “Since the king and thepopulation knew how to accumulate religious merit, good fortune and prosperityprevailed in Hariphunchai and Chiang Mai.”16

b) The outer zones adjacent to the core region consisted of müang that were ruledby sons, nephews, and other close relatives17 or confidants of the king.18 As forwhich person the king chose to place in each müang as governor of hisconfidence, viz. “Lord of the domain” (cao müang ‡®â“‡¡◊Õß), it depended on thestrategic importance and the political value of the symbol of the respective müang.Chiang Rai and Chiang Saen, located in the old ancestral land of the Tai Yuan,were mostly ruled by the sons, preferably the eldest offspring of a king; whereas

12 Bòriwen kaen klang ∫√‘‡«≥·°π°≈“ß), literally: “the central region forming the pivot”.13 Müang bòriwan (‡¡◊Õß∫√‘«“√).14 Saraswadee 1988: 2. Deriving from Saraswadee are also the Siamese terms bòriwen kaen klangand müang bòriwan, which are not mentioned in Northern Thai sources.15 King Müang Kaeo after paying a visit to Wat Phrathat donated to the monastery land and 86families as kha wat. See SRI 81.066.05.062: Tamnan müang lapun, f˚ 42.16 Tamnan m¢las¡san¡ 1970: 222.17 The “aristocrat of royal blood” (cao nai chüa phrawong ‡®â“π“¬‡™◊ÈÕæ√–«ß»å).18 The present writer is unable to find a term in any Northern Thai source (chronicles as well asinscriptions) which adequately renders the meaning of “outer zone” or “outer müang”. The mostlikely terms that he has come across are the terms huamüang nòk (À—«‡¡◊ÕßπÕ°) [huamüang =“province”, nòk = “beyond”] used in the “Chronicle of Phayao”. However, the first part, huamüang,seems to be a Siamese loan word of the late nineteenth century and is not a genuine Northern Thaiterm. In most of the manuscripts the term müang in its simple form is used indiscriminately for allparts of Lan Na, regardless of her political dependency on the capital. In some manuscripts (such asthe “Chronicle of Müang Yòng” the term luk müang (≈Ÿ°‡¡◊Õß) [luk, here means: “descendant, off-spring”] appears to be a term denoting satellite regions (müang bòriwan ‡¡◊Õß∫√‘«“√) or also repre-senting a dependent müang. See also Udom 1991: 1144.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:075

6 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


the governors of Phayao, Fang and Lampang were mostly nephews or youngeruncles of the sovereign. In most cases the rulers of a few distinguished müangwere not nobles descended from the line of the Mangrai Dynasty.19

In the outer müang the king did not exert direct control over the freecommunities living there. The basic administrative units of a müang, the district(panna æ—ππ“) and the villages (ban ∫â“π), were ruled by nobles appointed not by theking, but by the governor. The king depended on the co-operation of the governorswhen he needed labourers for public works (irrigation projects, road construction,building storehouses for provisions, etc.) or in the case of war.20 In 1296, when theold Mon rulers Yiba and Boek invaded Chiang Mai, the invaders were defeated bytroops raised from the Chiang Rai region, which were commanded by Cai Songkham,a son of Mangrai and the governor of Chiang Rai.21

c) In the vassal müang the power of the king was even less felt.22 These müangwere ruled by local families, which were connected with Chiang Mai bykinship. A few of the respectable ruling houses—such as those from ChiangTung and Müang Nai—traced their ancestry even back to King Mangrai. Thevassal müang delivered tribute in natural kinds (mostly in valuable forestproducts)23 once every three years to the capital, and their rulers were requiredto come to Chiang Mai annually in order to “drink the water of allegiance” (kinnam satca °‘ππÈ” —®®“) in the presence of the king.24

In the reign of King Tilok (1441–1487), Chiang Mai exercised her power as over-lord over the following vassal states (from the west to the north and to the east):25

19 Saraswadee 1988: 2–3.20 Saraswadee 1988: 7–8.21 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 48; CMC-TPCM 1971: 29, CMC-TSHR, SRI 1981b: 103; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 70–72.22 The expression müang khün (‡¡◊Õß¢÷Èπ), “dependent müang”, which is also employed in Lan Na,fits the status of an autonomous vassal state less precisely than the term prathetsarat (ª√–‡∑»√“™)used in Siam.23 The most important forest products were honey (nam phüng πÈ”º÷Èß), beeswax (khi phüng ¢’Èº÷Èß),incense (kamyan °”¬“π), mushrooms (het ‡ÀÁ¥), ivory (nga chang ß“™â“ß), and rhinoceros horn(nò raet πÕ·√¥). See Usanee 1988: 27–29.24 Kham sòn phraya mangrai 1976: 4.25 See Saraswadee 1988: 3. Large numbers of Lua populations lived in nearly all of the mentionedvassal states — as in the core land of Lan Na itself. Many Lua inhabited at that time — differentfrom today’s descendants — together with the Tai in the river valleys. On the role of the Lua duringthe Mangrai Dynasty, see Ratanaporn and Renard 1988.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:076



a. Müang Nai26 and some other Shan principalities,27 whose principalpopulation was Shan;

b. Chiang Tung, whose principal population was Tai Khün;c. Müang Yòng, whose principal population was Tai Lü;d. Sipsòng Panna (the southern part)28, whose principal population was

Tai Yuan or “Kao”.29

The model composed of three different categories of müang resembled the struc-ture of state formation in Sukhothai30 that has been investigated by NakhònPhannarong. It differs, however, not insignificantly from the more complex systemof Ayutthaya.31 The affiliation of any Northern Thai müang to one of the threeabove-mentioned categories was not at all static and rigid, as the scheme wouldsuggest. While the core region exhibited a remarkable stability, the borders

26 Müang Nai, the most important müang on the western frontier of Lan Na, was founded in 1318by Khun Khüa, a son of Mangrai. Its population consisted predominantly of “Ngiao”, as the TaiYuan call the Shan with a negative connotation.27 The CMC lists a total of eleven Shan principalities (müang ngiao ‡¡◊Õß‡ß’È¬«), which after 1462/63were submitted to King Tilok. Apart from Müang/Moeng Nai (¡. π“¬) were the following müang:M. Su (¡. Ÿà), M. Lai Kha (¡. ≈“¬¢â“), M. Cit (¡. ®’¥), M. Cang (¡. ®“ß), M. King (¡. °‘ß), M. Lòk Còk (¡.≈Õ°®Õ°), M. Cam Ka (¡. ®”§“), M. Yòng Huai (¡. ¬ÕßÀâ«¬), M. Nòng Bòn (¡. ÀπÕß∫Õπ)and M. Si Pò (¡. ’ËªÑÕ). See CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 97; CMC-TPCM 1971: 64; see alsoCMC-N, Notton 1932: 135; cf. PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 340.28 Tilok conquered Müang Tun and Müang Luang [Lòng?] in 1455/56. In the year 1460/61 the kingadded to his conquests Müang Phong, likewise located in the extreme south of Sipsòng Panna. SeeCMC-TPCM 1971: 54; CCM-HP, Wyatt and Aroonrut 1995: 83. Cf. PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973:330–33.29 “Kao” (°“«) was obviously the original ethnic name which the Tai population in the valley of theNan called themselves. This ethnonym was used in the chronicles from Nan only during the time inthe fifteenth century before losing her sovereignty. See Wyatt (in NC-PMN-W) 1994: 54, fn. 3. TheRam Khamhaeng inscription mentions the “Kao”, in fact together with the Lao, as a kingdom of theTai race subject to Sukhothai. See Prasert and Griswold 1992: 263 and 278.30 Located beyond the capital of Sukhothai (müang luang or müang ratchathani) were the fourmüang ruled by close relatives of the ruling house that marked the core of the kingdom, theso-called “müang of the king’s children” (müang luk luang): Si Satchanalai, Sòng Khwae, Sa Luangand Nakhòn Chum. Less important, but also subordinate to the control of the ruler, were the müangof the governor of the capital (müang phraya maha nakhòn). Those having to pay tribute were thevassals (müang òk or müang khün), for a time Phrae and Nan among them. See Nakhòn 1985:68-69.31 The main characteristic of the system of provincial administration that was established underKing Bòrommatrailokanat in the second half of the fifteenth century was the division ofprovinces into four classes: ek, tho, tri, and cattawa. Moreover, the basic rule was valid: the higherthe class of a province, and the less its spatial distance was from Ayutthaya, the more it wasdependent on the capital. Only the province of the fourth grade, the huamüang cattawa, was underthe direct control of the king; they formed a “circle around the royal capital” (wong ratchathani).Beyond the actual domain were dependent “müang (müang prathetsarat) ruled by the king”.See Tambiah 1976: 133–35.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:077

8 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


between the outer zones and the vassal states were more fluid. The principalities ofPhrae and Nan, though they had been former vassal states of Sukhothai32 and wereat first also ruled by members of the local family during the first decade after theyhad been subjugated by Chiang Mai,33 retained a high degree of autonomy.Nevertheless, after 1460 nobles from other parts of Lan Na were appointed rulers(cao müang) of Phrae and Nan, by means of whom both principalities were admin-istratively attached more closely to Chiang Mai.34 An opposite development tookplace in Müang Nai and Chiang Tung in the west. Both principalities were ruled bysons of King Mangrai at the beginning of the fourteenth century and maintainedclose relations with Chiang Mai. However, not long after Mangrai’s death theywere allowed to acquire a stronger degree of independence. Under Tilok and MüangKaeo their status as vassal states was explicitly recognised.35

Located on the northern periphery is Sipsòng Panna, whose ruling house inChiang Rung maintained close family ties with the Mangrai Dynasty in Lan Na.On broad ethnic and cultural levels there was also a strong alliance of the Tai Lüwith the Tai Yuan. But on the political level, Chiang Rung constantly attempted to

32 The communication routes between Phrae or Nan and Sukhothai were considerably shorter thanthe corresponding routes between these two müang and Chiang Mai. Phrae and Nan could be reachedfrom Sukhothai rather easily via the waterways, namely along the Yom River or rather the NanRiver, whereas from Chiang Mai one had to cross in each case several mountain ranges. The closepolitical and kinship relations between Nan and Sukhothai are substantiated by Griswold and Prasert1969.33 Phaña Intakaen, the old ruler of Nan, fled to Chaliang, then in the sphere of influence of Ayutthaya.His brother or nephew became then the new ruler, who recognised the sovereignty of Tilok andruled Nan until his death in the year 1459. See NC-PMN-W, Wyatt 1994: 53; CMC-TPCM 1971:53, PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 325–27. Cf. Griswold and Prasert 1976: 133.34 The “Chronicle of Nan” reports that after the death of Pha Saeng, the then Governor of ChiangKhòng, Mün Sòi was nominated the Governor of Nan in 1460, but four years later he was trans-ferred to Fang. See NC-PMN-W, Wyatt 1994: 55. According to some versions of the “Chronicle ofChiang Mai”, however, King Tilok granted Yuthitthira (Yudhis.t.hira), the ex-Governor of Phitsanulok(Müang Sòng Khwae) who deserted to the side of Lan Na in 1451, control over Ngao, “the Kao inthe whole region of Phrae” [‡¡◊Õßß“« °“«‡¡◊Õß ·æ√à∑—ß·§«âπ] (Kao is the appellation of the Taigroups of that time in Nan and Phrae, V.G.), after he had previously been the Governor of Phayao.See CMC-TPCM 1971: 57; cf. PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 333. But other versions of CMC con-firm that Cao Phaña Sòng Khwae (Yuthitthira) was given the administration of Ngao and Phrae.Nevertheless they do not mention Nan in this context. See CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 41; CMC-N,Notton 1932: 121. The “Chronicle of Nan” also does not confirm Cao Phaña Sòng Khwae’s ruleover Nan.35 The rulers of Müang Nai and Chiang Thòng, accompanied by a large entourage, appeared inChiang Mai in early 1517. They drank the “water of allegiance” on 27 May and took the oath ofallegiance to King Müang Kaeo. The ruler of Chiang Mai wished both of his vassals good luck andprosperity. The English translation of JKM talks about “the two provincial rulers” (JKM, Ratanapañña1968: 164), whereas the Siamese translation of this passage renders the text as “cao prathetsaratthang sòng” (JKM, Saeng 1958: 132). Phrathetsarat (ª√–‡∑»√“™), literally “King of [another, butdependent] country”, is borrowed from Siamese not from Northern Thai terminology.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:078



avoid having tribute relations with Chiang Mai. The proximity of Sipsòng Panna toChina and to Burma, two powerful countries when compared to Lan Na, made itmore difficult for Chiang Mai to enforce a lasting claim of her suzerainty overChiang Rung. Only under the rule of the two energetic and charismatic kings,Mangrai and Tilok, did Chiang Rung send tribute delegations to Chiang Mai.36

Due to its closer proximity to the northern müang of Lan Na (Chiang Saenand Chiang Tung), the Tai Lü from Müang Yòng were more reliable vassals. Aroundthe year 1450 Müang Yòng was subdued by Tilok. “The king took his armies tofight the Tai Lü of Ban Pung and Müang Yòng, and defeated them.”37 Three de-cades later (1483/84) Müang Yòng fell temporarily into the hands of Lua (Lawa)rebels. Tilok sent an army to the region of unrest and defeated the poorly organisedrebels, who fled to Chiang Rung.38 From then until the Burmese invasion in 1557/58, Müang Yòng remained a vassal state of Chiang Mai.

The vassal states rendered not only important contributions to frontiersecurity but also promoted the economy and trade of Lan Na. Rare forest productssuch as honey, wax, incense, mushrooms, ivory, and rhinoceros horns were verycoveted tribute articles in Chiang Mai. Precious metals, in particular silver, copper,and iron ores were produced in the Shan region and in Chiang Tung. The rawmaterials from Chiang Mai or from adjacent places like Hòt were exported toAyutthaya and Lower Burma, whereby Lan Na obtained in exchange other materi-als and utensils. As the plain of the Ping River was one of the two main areas of ricecultivation in Lan Na, Chiang Mai exported above all rice to regions with chronicshortages of food, notably on the western and northern peripheries. As alreadymentioned, an important centre of regional inland trade was Chiang Saen. Thehuge rice market in Chiang Saen supplied rice to Nan, Chiang Tung, and even toChiang Rung and Luang Prabang.39

36 Mangrai was the son of the beloved daughter of Thao Rung Kaen Chai (Tao Hung Kaen Cai, r.1234–1257), the fourth ruler of the Tai Lü federation later known under the name of Sipsòng Panna.37 Quoted from CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 81; see also CMC-TPCM 1971: 53; see also CMC-N, Notton 1932: 112. PY (Prachakitkòracak 1973: 318), recorded the subjugation of Müang Yòngby the beginning of the fifteenth century. As reported, King Sam Fang Kaen conquered MüangYòng, which was completely devastated by the Chinese during their invasion of 1404/05, andrebuilt it into a holy relic, the Maha Kesathat Cao Còm Yòng, which was sponsored by him. The“Chronicle of Müang Yòng” mentions the worship of the relic as the ritual centre of the müang andestablishes a vague chronological context on the fighting between Lan Na and the Chinese Hò.However, no year is mentioned that can provide a more exact order of events. See MS, SRI79.027.05.064–064: Tamnan müang yòng, ff˚ 41–43, 50–54. However, the “Chronicle of ChiangMai” does not report the conquest of the region around Müang Yòng in relation to the fightingagainst the invasion of the Hò in 1404/05. See CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 73-74; CMC-TPCM1971: 47–48; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 24–25.38 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 101; CMC-TPCM 1971: 68; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 142.39 The trade relations between Lan Na and her vassals as well as between Lan Na and Ayutthaya aredescribed in detail in Usanee 1988: 25–35.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:079

10 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Although the loyalty of the vassals remained uncertain and fragile, in thecourse of the fifteenth century there was a general tendency towards centralisation.The king strengthened his control over the outer zones and his influence on thevassals by various means: a) dynastic alliances with the most important vassals; b)rotation of governors in the outer müang (mostly after the enthronement of a newking);40 and c) the exclusive right to make monastic donations.41

In particular, the importance of the last mentioned means should not beunderestimated. The governors were permitted to donate land (uthit Õÿ∑‘»)42 andfreemen (phrai) or their own slaves (kha or khòi) to monasteries before the rule ofMüang Kaeo.43 Ambitious governors used this power to accumulate religious mer-its and concurrently to increase their political reputation.44 Under Müang Kaeo,

40 Saraswadee (1988: 10–11) gives several examples for such rotations. In the case of, in particular,high treason, the king would liquidate a governor. Tilok had the governor of Müang Sòng executedbecause he delivered rice to the Siamese enemy. In less serious cases the king was satisfied bytransferring the disloyal governor to a less important müang. In the year 1409/19 Sam Fang Kaensent his son Tilok, until then the governor of Phrao, after a dispute, to the remote Müang Yuam Tai.With this disciplinary transfer Tilok was in fact temporarily isolated from political events in thecapital; yet in the years 1441/42 Tilok, by collaborating with Sam Dek Ñòi, a high official of hisfather, succeeded in overthrowing King Sam Fang Kaen from Müang Yuam Tai. See CMC-TPCM1971: 48–49; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 102–104.Through rotating the posts the establishment of a dynasty in the important müang of Lan Na propercould also be prevented. Locally influential governors aimed at patronising close familymembers to be their successors. Thus in Phayao Governor Yuthitthira (Cao Sòng Khwae) wassucceeded by his widow, who like her husband obviously had the complete trust of King Tilok.After her death (1490/91) King Ñòt Chiang Rai appointed his stepfather Cao Si Mün as the newgovernor of Phayao and thus ended the regional influence of the Yuthitthira family. For this, see theepigraphic evidence in Prachum carük müang phayao 1995: 24–26.41 See Rawiwan 1988: 18–20; cf. Saraswadee 1988: 12.42 Inscriptions and chronicles from Lan Na do not use the term kanlapana (°—≈ªπ“), which Ayutthayahad borrowed from the Khmer. See Rawiwan 1982: 46.43 For this, there is much evidence in Northern Thai inscriptions. Wat Nòng Khwang was estab-lished in the year 1466 by the Governor of [Müang?] Òi. Two years later the Governor of MüangWang Nüa built the monastery (Wat) Canthara-aram and donated 20 servants to this monastery (khawat) and 300 rai (50 ha) of rice land. Likewise under the reign of King Tilok the Governor ofLampang donated four families to (Wat) Phrathat Luang. See Rawiwan 1982: 121. Several isolatedmonastic endowments by non-royalty are also reported for the reign of King Müang Kaeo. Forexample, on 21 January 1516, several lay persons paid a total of 400 ngoen (units of silver) toredeem two families who obviously had been in debt slavery. The two families were handed over askha wat to the monastery Wat Sipsòng Hòng. See Inscription “Phayao 13”, Prachum carük müangphayao 1995: 300.44 Yuthitthira, the Governor of Phayao, whose sphere of influence extended to Phrae and Nan, hadthe title “Phaña Asokalat, the ruler” (æ√–√“™“Õ‚ °√“™ºŸ‡ªπ‡®“) engraved in the inscription “Phayao45” (page 2, line 4). Obviously Yuthitthira and his supporters viewed Phayao and the adjoiningregions as a domain de facto independent from Chiang Mai. See Prachum carük müang phayao1995: 93–98.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0710



however, they had first to beg the king for permission.45 Religious donations weremade exclusively in the names of kings. The water-ceremony, which originated inSri Lanka, had to be performed so that the newly established monastery serves theagrarian prosperity of the kingdom.46

Moreover, the king could donate monasteries as well as sponsor the phrai(in the core region of Chiang Mai and Lamphun) that were directly under hiscontrol, or the phrai under the administration of a governor. Consequently the kingsecured an effective means of increasing his religious prestige as well as his politi-cal influence beyond the region close to the capital. Through this means he profitedfrom his defacto monopoly of religious foundations — and King Müang Kaeomade full use of this. The king succeeded in consolidating his role as thammikarat,protector of Buddhism, and at the same time in weakening potential rivals becausethe loss of workforce to the monasteries sometimes meant for the regional rulers aserious decrease in their demographic basis. The king imposed a network of loyalreligious institutions on a system of potential centrifugal forces.47

The foundations of monasteries could not transgress certain objectivelimits. Workers whose duty was to maintain the monasteries, the so-called“servants of the monasteries” or kha wat (¢â“«—¥), were exempted from corvée.Neither the king nor the governors were allowed to mobilise these “externalinhabitants of the monasteries” for exceptional cases or in time of war. For thisreason the numerical strength of the kha wat probably remained small in compari-son to that of the phrai müang.48

The spread of two Buddhist reform orders under the kings Kü Na and Tilokfavoured the formation of a common identity among the ruling elite of Lan Na.Since the middle of the fifteenth century, the kings no longer established their powerbase by relying only on a far-reaching network of family relations but also on theirspiritual and moral leading roles as cakravartin and dharmar¡ja. Under Tilok, theworshipping of relics as a cult and of consecrated Buddhist statues as the “statepalladia” had achieved a previously unknown extent. Eminent Buddhist statuessuch as the Phra Kaeo (“Jade Buddha” in Chiang Rai) or the Phra Kaeo Can Daeng

45 Rawiwan 1982: 122.46 This ceremony is called lò nam su nüa thok tok phaendin (tr. À≈àÕπÈ” Ÿà‡Àπ◊Õ∑°µ°·ºàπ¥‘π), “moistenthe land with water” [Skt.: udaka, “water”]. See Rawiwan 1982: 122.47 Documentary evidence of extensive donations to Buddhist monasteries by the Indian ShatavahanaKings of the first and second centuries A.D. has been found. As Kulke remarks, “the ShatavahanaKings were for the first time allowed to donate larger amounts of land to Brahmans and Buddhistmonasteries, provided them with immunities (parih¡ra), such as protection against the trespassingof royal officials and soldiers. [...] In order to remove the influences of Brahmans and Buddhistmonasteries on local ruling powers they were provided with rich landed properties and immunities.Quoted from Kulke and Rothermund 1982: 112.48 This hypothesis is expressed by Saraswadee 1988: 13.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0711

12 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


(“Red Sandalwood Buddha” in Phayao) were taken from their originalmonasteries and paraded throughout the whole area of the capital. With imposingceremonial processions, they were worshipped by Tilok in important monasteriespatronised by the king, such as Wat Pa Daeng Luang.49

But Tilokarat also created an integrated cult of relic worship inorder to put himself in a superior position, like that of the Buddhawhose relics were enshrined. He sought to express his political powerthrough this integrated belief system comprising the indigenous cultand Buddhism, and so his power was affirmed and legitimised.Through the practice of land and labour endowments, the king andthe Sangha became interdependent, which helped to secure histhrone.50

During the reigns prior to Tilok, the kings appointed their sons and close relativesto be governors of müang in the outer zone, whereas during the reign of Tilokaristocrats not of kingly descent were increasingly recruited for attending togovernmental affairs.51 By this means, he enlarged and unified the leading admin-istrative class that viewed Chiang Mai as the undisputed political, ritual andcosmic centre of the country. The radical administrative reforms of his Siameseopponent, King Trailok of Ayutthaya, must have been inspired by Tilok’s reformworks.

In the economic sector, likewise, Lan Na achieved a high level ofcentralisation. At the beginning of his reign, the young Tilok felt that he was forcedto comply with the “four requests” of his uncle Mün Lok Sam Lan (also known asMün Lok Nakhòn) who had helped him come to power. The four requests appearedto be that the king should not only give the governor the right to levy taxes and levythem in his domain, but also cede to him the right to use them at his own discre-tion.52 Four decades later, at the end of his rule, Tilok had obviously rescinded theconcession that was extracted against his will. In the years 1480–81 “the king Tilokentrusted Mün Dam Phrakhot to raise from the population of Chiang Mai and the

49 See JKM, Ratanapañña 1968: 128, 158; cf. PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 342, 347.50 Dhida 1982: 105–106. The interdependence between king and san

.gha had already existed since

the reign of Kü Na, pointed out to the author by Prof. H. Hundius. Under Kü Na monks, in additionto representatives of the aristocrats, were nominated royal judges in civil and criminal proceedings.See Aroonrut 1977: 42.51 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 76; CMC-TPCM 1971: 51, CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 29–30;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 107–109.52 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 75; CMC-TPCM 1971: 49–50; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 105.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0712



rest of the land gold, silver, cowry shells and taxes in natural kinds in huge amountso as to fill the public treasury.”53

One reform of Tilok turned out to be disastrous after his death: the institu-tion of a Privy Council for electing kings. Since the reign of Ñòt Chiang Rai thekings of Lan Na had been elected by the Council of the Regent, which comprisedthe influential aristocrats (sena-amat ‡ π“¡“µ¬å) from all quarters of the land and thesan.gha as the spiritual representative. Tilok could have been following the inten-tion that the election of a new sovereign should gain a broad consent within theruling elite. This wish reflected objective changes in state and society. Lan Na hadincreased in territory and population. Between 1300 and 1500, notably during thesecond half of the fifteenth century, in large parts of Lan Na land under agriculturalcultivation increased and human settlements expanded. The land then had a largerpopulation to feed, a population that had probably become ethnically more homo-geneous. Tilok tackled the problem of how the polity, which Mangrai had stillmanaged as a family business, was to be transformed into a more stable institu-tional structure. The participation of broader aristocratic circles in the politicaldecision-making process would reduce the power struggle within the small circleof the ruling house. So probably Tilok thought of considering his own experience,notably the disputes of his father with Sam Fang Kaen, the predecessor of hisfather.

Tilok’s considerations appear to be based on the premise that only a strongand charismatic personality should be elected to steer the state. This preconditionaffected Tilok personally as well as his grandson Müang Kaeo, who had severalbuildings for central administration established around 1520,54 from which we mayconclude that at least some basic structure of a central administration did exist.However, when weak kings were on the throne, the aristocrats could participate in“national” affairs by increasing their influence in the Privy Council. Factions ofaristocrats could be formed along the lines of regional divisions. This threatenedthe long-term coherence and, finally, the very existence of Lan Na. The establishedhistorical and geographic dichotomies between Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai-ChiangSaen remained a lurking potential danger.

53 Quoted from CMC-TPCM 1971: 67.54 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 106–107; CMC-TPCM 1971: 71; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 149.The term kwan (°«â“π) from Notton’s point of view is the Tai Yuan pendant of the Chinese Khuàn,“fonctionnaire, magistrat, autorité, mot tombé en désuétude, ne s’applique plus qu’à désigner uncornac”. For the year 1521 CMC-N reports the “construction du Hó Kong [tour-tambours] sur laplace royale et du K’ao Sanám (bureau central administratif) à l’emplacement du Hó Yòt Nak’on.”

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0713

14 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Lan Na around 1450

core region

outer zone

vassal müang

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0714



3. Land and population

Lan Na was a hierarchical society. Below the king and the royal family(ratchawong √“™«ß»å) were the aristocrats (nai π“¬), comprising high-ranking andlow-ranking officials in the capital and in the various müang (here:provinces) of the kingdom. The mass of the population consisted of commoners(phrai ‰æ√à; NT: /phâj/), which were also known in the Northern Thai legal (i.e.customary law) texts as “commoners/freemen of the country” (phrai müang‰æ√à‡¡◊Õß).55 Males between 18 and 60 years old (chakan ©°√√®å; NT: /sakan/) couldbe recruited into corvée and military service.56 There were also serfs in Lan Na, buttheir number was smaller than in Siam. Within the Northern Thai society the slaves(kha ¢â“)57 were not at all outcasts; they were allowed to marry commoners, andunder certain conditions were even allowed to inherit property, which could befurther inherited by their offspring.58

Most of the kha were debt-slaves or former phrai who entered slavery vol-untarily so as to be exempted from corvée and military service.59 For both the poorand those with means, it appeared that slavery was an attractive alternative — asleast as a temporary refuge — for the kha as a rule could purchase their freedomfrom slavery. The king and aristocrats had vital interests in protecting the socialclass of the phrai, which formed the foundation of the state. In trying to improvethe economic situation of the phrai, there was for instance a legal regulation thatexempted newly-cleared land from taxes for the first three years of cultivation.60

3.1 The nai sip system

Until the nineteenth century Lan Na lacked a system comparable to that ofthe Siamese sakdina system.61 In Ayutthaya the basic personal dependence of thefree communities was neither subordinate to the king (as phrai luang ‰æ√àÀ≈«ß) norto a high ranking aristocrat (as phrai som ‰æ√à ¡).62 However, in Lan Na the aristo-crats, in legal texts mostly known as latcatakun (Siamese: ratchatrakun √“™µ√–°Ÿ≈),

55 In the traditional Tai Dam society the phrai made up of about two thirds of the total population.See Condominas 1980: 289. Probably the component of other Tai people, like the Tai Yuan, was notdifferent.56 A detailed analysis of the social status of the phrai is provided by Aroonrut 1977: 185–87.57 In Siam that ∑“ which is derived from the Sanskrit word d¡sa, is normal.58 Aroonrut 1977: 113.59 See Article 12 of mangraisat (Wat Sao Hai version), Griswold and Prasert 1977a: 152.60 See Article 12 of mangraisat (Wat Sao Hai version), ibid; also cf. Aroonrut 1977: 211–12.61 Aroonrut 1977: 113.62 For a clear and comprehensive description of the Siamese sakdina system it is to refer to thework by Akin 1969 (in particular pp. 9–99).

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0715

16 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


did not have phrai under their direct control. Aroonrut points to the fact that, incontrast to Ayutthaya, the Tai Yuan aristocrats of Lan Na had less power and werenot part of a refined sakadina system.63

The phrai in Chiang Mai and in other parts of Lan Na were organised alongterritorial units based on the system of nai sip (“master of ten”). The system, whichwas sometimes also called hua sip (“head of ten”), is described in mangraisat asthe basic principle of organising the labour force:

For every ten citizens, let there be one Nay Sip (nai sip), and oneforeman to act as intermediary and make known the tasks assigned.For each five Nay Sip, let there be one Nay Ha-sip (nai ha sip), [andtwo foremen], one for the left side and one for the right side. Fortwo Nay Ha-sip, let there be one Nay Roy (nai ròi). For ten NayRoy, let there be one Cau Ban (cao phan). For ten Cau Ban, let therebe ten Cau Hmin (cao mün). For ten Cau Hmin, let there be one CauSen (cao saen). Let the country be administered in this way so asnot to inconvenience the King.64

In this organisation of manpower superiors and inferiors were tied together bymutual obligations. A phrai was not allowed to abandon his nai sip, a nai sip had tostay with his nai hasip, and so on; but it was also considered a crime if a superior –from a cao saen downwards – neglected those under his direct command. If thisdid occur, the culprit would be tatooed on his forehead, a punishment which themangraisat considered even “more severe than the death [sentence]” (√â“¬°«à“µ“¬).65

A very similar system of controlling manpower, though employing adifferent terminology, is reported for the Shan federation of Moeng (Müang) Mao.While in all larger and more prominent müang the local rulers or governors (caomoeng) had control of the whole civilian and military apparatus, the so-called caolu (‡®â“≈Ÿ), directly attached to the cao hu, commanded more than 10,000 men. At thelower levels the cao kang (‡®â“°—Èß), the cao pak (‡®â“ª“°) 100, the cao hasip (‡®â“Àâ“ ‘∫)and the cao cun (‡®â“®ÿπ) had 1,000, 100, 50 and 10 men under their respectivecommand.66

63 Aroonrut 1977: 114.64 Quoted from Griswold and Prasert 1977a: 147–48. We have inserted in brackets our own spell-ing system of Tai terms. It deviates from the Sanskrit orientated transcription used by Griswold andPrasert, and is closer to the phonetic system. The translation of nai ròi into “master of the (sic!)hundred”, etc. by Griswold and Prasert is changed into, for stylistic reasons, “master of a hundred,etc.; cf. Mangraisat (Version Wat Mün Ngoen Kòng) 1975: 2.65 Toonsri 1992: 45.66 Somphong 2001: 155-56.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0716



The origins of the nai sip system are not explained clearly, in particular theMangraisat surely does not reflect the legal condition which was valid during thetime when King Mangrai was living, but shows a legal condition that was muchlater. However, Wang Ji Min argues that “the nai sip system from Müang Nai wasintroduced following that of Müang Babai-xifu [Lan Na]”.67 He supports his viewwith the following argument: Khun Khüa, Mangrai’s youngest son, was exiled toMüang Nai (c. 1310) after he had a dispute with his elder brother, Cai Songkham.Müang Nai, an erstwhile vassal of Chiang Rung, already had an administrativesystem, which followed the nai sip principle; because there was a khom kwan(¢à¡°«â“π), which on behalf of the local ruler “announced to all the nai sip the assign-ments that had to be performed permanently.”68 Wang Ji Min suggests further thatthe Tai Lü in Sipsòng Panna had taken over this system from the Chinese duringthe Northern Song Dynasty (960–1127).

[At that time] there was a system in the countryside, under which,for ten families there was a “small supervisor” and for fifty familiesa “medium supervisor”. For one hundred families there was a “bigsupervisor”, apart from that an assistant of the “big supervisor”.The system was employed at that time as a precaution taken forsecurity so that in the night no robbery and damage of property tookplace in the villages. If one [member of] a family was involved instealing, the ten families [of the group] would be punished. In timeof war the high officials sent an order for recruiting soldiers andlabourers with this system — from top to bottom — easily andquickly.69

The above description is the so-called bao-jia system introduced during the Songperiod, which was a system of organising the population similar to that of the li-jiasystem of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644). One li consisted of 110 families with a liheadman; one jia consists of 10 families with a jia headman. It was a ruralorganisation for census registration, tax-raising, and labour service.70

67 Wang Ji Min 1988: 65.68 Here Wang Ji Min (1988: 65) quotes from Prasert na Nagara’s introduction to mangraisat (1978:1). The CMC and other sources indeed mention the exile of Khun Khüa to Müang Nai, but not thenai sip or hua sip system in Müang Nai. Quoted from CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 53; CMC-TPCM 1971: 34 and CMC-N, Notton 1932: 73; PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 278.69 Wang Ji Min 1988: 66.70 See Liew 1985; cf. Lee 1982: 714.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0717

18 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Aroonrut Wichienkeeo follows essentially the argument developed by WangJi Min.71 Jacques Lemoine traces the establishment of the nai sip system in SipsòngPanna directly to Mongolian influences. After the conquest of Dali, the capital ofthe kingdom of Later Dali (1096–1253)—the successor state of Nan Chao72 —in1253, the Tai Lü in Sipsòng Panna also came under Mongol rule. In 1292 PhañaMoeng Nai, who was the ruler of Chiang Rung recognised by the Mongols,established the so-called Ho [hua] sip system to consolidate control over thepopulation.73

The Ho sip system was a military organisation following the pattern of theMongolian army.74 The [baojia] system, under which families were organised intounits of ten, developed gradually during the Northern Song period, then permittedthe ruler of the Yuan (1279–1368) to introduce it throughout China and improve itfurther.75 As for his thesis, the “feudal” order of society of the Mongols and (later)the Chinese exerting an impressive influence on the Tai Lü in Sipsòng Panna,Lemoine quotes as evidence: The Tai Lü word “master”, nai (π“¬), which was alsoused in Lan Na and Siam, derived presumably from the Mongolian word noyan.The Tai Lü word for “ten thousand” (mün) and that in Mongolian (tümen) are simi-lar.76

Amphai Doré shows that in Laos, at the latest under King Fa Ngum(r. 1353–1373), founder of the Lan Sang kingdom, titles like saen, mün and phan,borrowed from the Nai sip system, had lost their original military meaning. Byaround 1286, in Luang Prabang the title mün had already distinguished officials

71 Aroonrut 1989: 8.72 It was in fact the Later Dali kingdom (1096–1253) which was conquered by the Mongols in1253, and not the Nan Chao kingdom of the house of Meng. Dali was ruled by the house of Duan.The Nan Chao kingdom (contemporary of the Tang Dynasty) was much earlier than the two Dalikingdoms. During the later Song Dynasty and Yuan period there was no longer a Nan Chaokingdom.73 Lemoine 1987: 131. As to a possible Chinese origin of the system, Foon Ming Liew points outthat hua means Chinese and sip (in a Chinese dialect, such as Hakka) ten or decimal. Thus ho sip orhua sip should be interpreted as a Chinese decimal system of civil or military organisation. Accord-ing to Mote (1999: 427), a tümen or myrachy, comparable to a division in modern Western armies,could also “become the territorial administration for a conquered area.”74 For the Yuan military systems, see Hsiao 1978. As to the military organisation of the Mongols,Mote (1999: 475) remarks: “[Chinggis Khan] also undertook the difficult process of reorganizinghis army into decimal units of 10, 100, 1,000, and eventually 10,000 men, and of imposing on thoseunits a chain of command that brought his military subordinates under strict discipline.”75 Obviously 100 families form the smallest unit. See Doré (1987: 196), who bases his account onthe Chinese chronicle Manshu (Book of the Barbarians). According to Wang Ji Min there werethree categories of the “unit of 1,000 families”: a) under 300 families; b) 300 to 700 families, and c)700 to 1,000 families. An analogy was the differentiation of the “unit of 10,000 families” in threesimilar categories.76 Lemoine 1987: 131–32.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0718



with political administrative functions.77 Though Doré considers the introductionof the nai sip system in Lan Sang before the mid-thirteenth century unlikely, heleaves the possibility open that it was implemented in Nan Chao (to be more pre-cise, the later Dali kingdom) prior to the conquest by the Mongolians (1253).78

The nai sip system was obviously moulded for military necessities. In timesof war, it enabled a quick mobilisation of eligible men for military service andorganised them into military units.79 The system could also function well inenlisting workers for civilian undertakings. The nai sip system endured — at leastrudimentarily — in Lan Na down to the nineteenth century. A legal text from Nandated 1861 mentions a regulation, according to which cows and buffaloes were tobe fenced off and kept away from the rice fields. In implementing the regulation,the hua sip was entrusted to co-operate with his subordinate, the luk sip.80 The TaiLü in Sipsòng Panna (southwest China) and Chiang Khaeng (northwest Laos) keptthe institution of hua sip until the late nineteenth century. In both regions hua sipalso designated a territorial unit above the village level. Up to ten villages or, rather,hamlets formed one hua sip. But the number of hamlets in one hua sip could be lessthan ten. We find evidence that just one single large village constituted one huasip.81

3.2 The panna system

Parallel to labour force organisation along a “decimal system”, there was aterritorial unit existing in Lan Na that enabled the mobilisation of human potential,namely the panna (æ—ππ“). Although panna means “Thousand Rice Fields”, theword should not be translated literally into one thousand rai (= 167 ha), but similarto the term “Lan Na” should be interpreted as a territorial unit. Panna was the basicadministrative unit of Lan Na, between the levels of müang and village (ban), and

77 Doré bases his thesis on an excessively large population in the late thirteenth century. A totalstrength of 1,000,000 men capable of bearing arms, as was justified in the “census” of Sam SaenThai a century later, surely only had symbolical value. Thus it is not convincing when Doré (1987:664, fn. 1) draws the conclusion: “Si l’effectif total des troupes du Lan Sang est d’une million, onpeut estimer que Mun [Mün = “10,000”] Krabong et Mun Can possèdent chacun entre 2 à 300,000hommes.”78 Doré 1987: 207, 664.79 It is possible to think of military units such as a platoon (10 men), a company (50–100 men), abattalion (1,000 men) and a division of army (10,000 men). The Ming garrison called weisuo wasorganised like that. See Liew 1998, I, 69–71 and p. 364.80 “Anacak lak kham (kotmai müang nan)”, Saraswadee 1993: 79 [f˚ 23 the original manuscript].81 This was the case with regards to the numerous hua sip belonging to Moeng Long (southwest ofChiang Rung). As to the institution of the hua sip in Sipsòng Panna cf. Yanyong and Ratanaporn2001: 63–64.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0719

20 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


is sometimes rendered as “district” in Western works. The existence of anotheradministrative term that lies between the levels of panna and ban, the pakna(ª“°π“), is not certain, as the evidence in the manuscripts and epigraphic materialsis too vague.82 The recruitment of manpower for public projects or for militaryservice83 was carried out on the panna level. Taxes and tributes were levied fromthe panna and from there they were delivered to the respective müang, whence therevenues were eventually channelled into Chiang Mai.84 The panna served as adecisive connecting link between village and capital in the distribution ofeconomic resources. The economic importance of panna for the king is reflected ina contemporary inscription. An inscription from Wat Kao Ñòt (Phayao) dated 1412/13 records a donation of Sam Fang Kaen:

The king gave field produce from panna Muang [æ—ππ“¡à«ß] with thevalue 55,000 bia.85 Cao Si Mün Phayao was very pleased over themeritorious deed of the king, who donated the Buddha 500 [units]of rice from the panna Chiang Di. The king as well as Mahathewi,his mother, procured these high merits, that would continue as longas until the religion has reached 5,000 years.86

The existence of the panna system can for the first time be verified with regards tothe principality of Phayao. The author of the Phayao Chronicle (Tamnan müangphayao, National Library Version, PC-TMP-HSH), which was said to be compiled

82 The only reference in a manuscript to the term pakna that is known to us is found in the CMC.There we find the statement that in the years 1286/87 Ngam Müang, the ruler of Phayao, was tocede to his ally Mangrai a “pakna, which had 500 houses”. Quoted from CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut1995: 33; CMC-TPCM 1971: 13. In Aroonrut’s Northern Thai Dictionary the term pakna is regis-tered and, refering to the above mentioned passage just quoted from the CMC, is rendered as“cluster of villages under a single administration, a sub-district.” However, in Udom’s dictionarythe corresponding entry is missing. The epigraphic evidence is even less conclusive. The inscrip-tion “Lamphun 22” from Wat Wisuttharam, the largest and most important monastery in Phayao,mentions three officials holding the title pak. Nevertheless, the inscription gives no visible connec-tion with an administrative unit called pak. See Prachum carük müang phayao 1995: 265–69.According to Aroonrut (1996a: 415) pak is characterised as “a person supervising 100 persons”;later pak was transformed into pakna, “a government official in charge of agriculture”.83 After Mangrai suppressed the revolt led by his son Cao Khun Kham (Cai Songkham), herecruited strong forces from the city of Chiang Rai (tr. ‡π◊ÈÕ‡™’¬ß√“¬, “flesh, substance” + “ChiangRai”) as well as from the luk panna (tr. ≈Ÿ°æ—ππ“, “offspring” + panna) subordinate to Chiang Rai.See CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 46–47; CMC-TPCM 1971: 29.84 Aroonrut 1989: 9-11; Saraswadee 1996: 158–59; Songsaeng 1986: 57.85 The spelling be (‡∫â) used in the inscription indicates a possibleTai Lü descent of the author.86 Inscription “Lamphun 27”, Prachum carük müang phayao 1995: 76.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0720



under the direct auspices of King (Khun) Còm Tham (around 1100),87 reports thatthe ruler used the territorial basic unit of panna to carry out the taking of censuses.

[...] The ruler allowed the households to be counted. Every fivehouseholds were registered in a list; they formed 19 dikan and 1,000dikan would be put together in a panna.88

One panna therefore was composed of over 263 households or about 1,315 inhab-itants, supposing that the average household comprises five persons. In anotherversion of the Phayao Chronicle (Wat Si Khom Kham Version, PC-TMP-WSKK),there is a different description:

There was a royal edict to register the population of the wholeregion of Müang Phukam Ñao (Phayao). All military and civilofficials and all the scribes went out to compile the census lists ofall places in the whole land. It was ordered to investigate the entirepopulation of [Phayao]. There were 180,000 inhabitants. Thecounting including the outer regions (huamüang nòk À—«‡¡◊ÕßπÕ°)amounted to 1,323,000 inhabitants.

Thirty-six panna were organised. Five people shall live from a na(paddy field). Five tang (µ“ß - 100–150 litre) or 50,000 (unit notstated, V. G.) of seed-rice are at the disposal of one person.89

The total number of panna in Phayao was 264, as to the 36 panna in thecore area 228 panna in the outer zones have to be added.90 The obviously highlyexaggerated population figures91 could hardly be the result of the exact registra-

87 The dates of the term of office of Khun Còm Tham cannot be established exactly. Prachakitkòracak(1973: Appendix, without giving the pages) gives the period from 1096/97 to 1120/21; yet thenumber of years (quite plausible) given appears to be obtained from deducing the dates of variousmanuscripts. None of the editions of chronicles from Phayao or those in manuscripts that we haveconsulted give explicitly the dates of enthronement or of death of King Còm Tham.88 “Version Hò samut haengchat” (PC-TMP-HSH), from Aroonrut et al. 1984: 30 [in original manu-script f˚ 43].89 PC-WSKK, Hundius Collection, f˚ 21. [tr. ¡’√“™Õ“™≠“À◊ÈÕ®—¥π—∫¥Ÿ•π‰π∑âÕß‡¢µ·¢«ß‡¡◊ÕßæŸ°“¡¬“«≈Ÿ°‡¡◊Õß∑—ß¡«≈ à«π«à“‡ π“Õ“¡“µ∑—ßÀ≈“¬Àπ—ß ◊Õ‡ ¡’¬π∑—ßÀ≈“¬§Á‰æ®¥À¡“¬‡Õ“‡ âπ•π™ÿ∫â“π™ÿ‡¡◊Õß™ÿ•π ™Ÿ·Ààß ™ÿ∑’Ëπ—Èπ·≈â« —Ëß√«¡•π ∑—ß¡«≈¡’•π· π 8 À¡◊Ëπ —Ëß√«¡∑—ßÀ—«‡¡◊ÕßπÕ° ¡’•π≈â“π 3 · π 2 À¡◊Ëπ 3 æ—π•π ®‘Ëßµ—Èß‰«â 36 æ—ππ“·≈ 5 •π‰Àπ‡ªππ“ 1 •‘ß•π‰ÀπÀ◊ÈÕ‡¬’¬–π“ 5 µ“ß §◊Õ«à“ 5 À¡◊Ëπ‡¢â“‡™◊ËÕ·≈]. Cf. PC-WSBR, quoted from Aroonrut1989: 6 [f˚ 21 in original manuscript].90 PC-WSKK, Hundius Collection, f˚ 23. One version of the “Chronicle of Phayao”, on which“Phongsawadan Müang Ngoen Yang-Chiang Saen” is also based, gives only “altogether 124 panna[namely 36 panna in core region and 88 panna in the outer zones].91 The population in the districts of today’s province of Phayao reached the mark of 100,000 at thebeginning of the twentieth century.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0721

22 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


tion, but were probably based on the following consideration: assuming that in apanna the average population was 5,000 inhabitants, that means the 264 panna inPhayao, including its 22 vassals or so-called “outer regions” (huamüang nòkÀ—«‡¡◊ÕßπÕ°),92 had a population of 1,320,000 people. This number is almost exactlyin accordance with the census report of 1,323,000 inhabitants mentioned in themanuscript quoted above.

The two consulted versions of the Phayao Chronicle suggest differentaverage numbers of persons livng in one panna. The numbers of persons of a pannafluctuated therefore between 1,300 (PC-TMP-HSH) and 5,000 (PC-TMP-WSKK),and as a result it is difficult to decide which of the two numbers comes closer toreality.

The Phayao Chronicle gives the impression that a panna could comprise upto ten or more villages. One version of the chronicle (PC-TMP-HSH) mentions thenames of fourteen villages of panna Chiang Di and twenty-eight villages of pannaNgüm. However, most of the others out of the total ten panna that are mentionedby name comprised only six or seven villages. Hence, to derive the estimation forthe total number of villages from the 102 panna (as given in PC-TMP-HSH) wouldbe misleading. A careful study of the texts confirms that the suspicious figure “102”is not related to the panna, but the entire number of villages (106) in the total ofonly ten (actually available) panna of the principality of Phayao.93

Table 1: Panna and villages in Phayao (c. 1100) [a]

Panna Transcription Phonetic Siamese NumberNo. (conventional) transcription transcription of villages

1. Chiang Di /ciaN 1 dii1/ ‡™’¬ß¥’ 142. Lin /lin1/ ≈‘π 63. Kheng /keeN 1/ ‡§ß 74. Khok Luang /khook3 luaN 6/ ‚§√°À≈«ß 75. Phüm /pÁm1/ æ÷¡ 166. Chan /can1/ ™—π 77. Paeng /pEEN6/ ·ªß 78. Khom /kom1/ §¡ 79. Wüm /wÁÁm1/ «◊¡ 7

10. Ngüm /NÁÁm1/ ß◊¡ 28

1.–10. Total 109

Source: Aroonrut 1989: 16–17.

92 Ngao in the south, Thoeng in the northeast and Wiang Pa Pao in the northwest also belong to thehuamüang nòk. These three müang obviously formed the outer corner points under the sphere ofinfluence that Phayao claimed.93 PC-TMP-HSH, Aroonrut 1989: 16–17. A list of all 22 huamüang nòk is found in PC-WSKK,Hundius Collection, f˚ 19.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0722



Note: The numbers in brackets correspond to the sequence of numbers in Table 3.

The panna system of Phayao

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0723

24 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Phra Devavisuddhivedi, abbot of the monastery (Wat) Si Khom Kham,Phayao, arrived at a similar result. Phra Devavisuddhivedi analysed the names ofthe villages in the 36 panna, as they are listed in the Phayao Chronicle (PC-WSKK),and, in addition, endeavoured to identify their locations as accurately as possible.

Table 2: Panna and villages in Phayao (c. 1100) [b]


1. Chiang Di /ciaN1 dii1/ ‡™’¬ß¥’ 142. Khok Luang /kook3 luaN 6/ ‚§°À≈«ß 63. Chae Tak /cEE3 taak2/ ·™àµ“° Ø4. Muang /muaN3/ ¡à«ß 75. Laeng /lEEN1/ ·≈ß Ø6. Thung Luang /tuN 3 luang6/ ∑àÿßÀ≈«ß Ø7. Chan /can1/ ™—π 78. Lò Tai /lOO1 tai4/ ≈Õ‰µâ Ø9. Chiang Khian /ciang1 khian3/ ‡™’¬ß‡•’Ë¬π Ø

10. Thon /ton1/ ∑π Ø11. Khrua /khua1/ §√—« Ø12. San /saan6/ “π Ø13. Chanak /ca?4 naak3/ ™–π“§ Ø14. Haen /hEEn6/ ·Àπ Ø15. Chiang Khoeng /ciang1 kh´´N3/ ‡™’¬ß‡•‘Ëß (= No. 9)16. Loeng /l´´N1/ ‡≈‘ß Ø17. Lin /lin1/ ≈‘π 618. Kaeo /kEEw4/ ·°â« Ø19. Chang Luang /saaN 6 luang6/ ©“ßÀ≈«ß Ø20. Mun /muun1/ ¡Ÿ≈ Ø21. Khwae Nòi /khwEE1 nOOj5/ ·•«πâÕ¬ Ø22. Tha Khrai /taa3 khai5/ ∑à“‰§√â Ø23. Chae Hat /cEE3 haat2/ ·™àÀ“¥ Ø24. Paen (Paeng) /pEEn4/ (/pEEN6/) ·ªÑπ (·ªß) 725. Kheng /keeN1/ ‡§ß 726. Püm /pÁÁm6/ ªó¡ 827. Chai /cai1/ ™—¬ Ø28. Kim /kim6/ °‘¡ Ø29. Chao /cao1/ ‡™“«å Ø30. Chuai /cuaj3/ ™à«¬ Ø31. Chiang Chi /ciaN 1 cii1/ ‡™’¬ß™’ Ø

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0724



The result is by no means amazing: Only ten panna could be identified; thelocations of two other panna could not be definitely ascertained; and twenty-fourpanna had no villages at all. Hence this latter group of panna were called pannawang plao (æ—ππ“«à“ß‡ª≈à“) or “empty panna”. The true panna, however, contained atotal of 103 villages.94 As far as they can be identified, most panna were situatedwithin a circle with a diameter of 80 km centred at the Kwan Phayao Lake. It isworth mentioning that more than two thirds of Phayao consisted of fictitious panna,whose only objective was probably to complete the total number of pannaaccording to the formula 2n (+1), which is considered in Southeast Asia asauspicious.95

A perusal of the Northern Thai Chronicles shows that only the mostimportant müang in Lan Na possessed sub-units called panna, whose number wascalculated according to the above-mentioned formula. Ngoen Yang had 32 panna;96


32. Chang /caaN 5/ ™â“ß Ø33. Chae Wo /cEE3 woo4/ ·™à‚À«â Ø34. Chae Hom /cEE3 hom2/ ·™àÀà¡ Ø35. Khom /kom1/ §¡ 636. Ngüm /NÁÁm1/ ß◊¡ 35

1.–36. Total 103

Source: Devavisuddhivedi 1991: 84–87.

94 Devavisuddhivedi 1991.95 As Shorto (1963) and Tambiah (1976) emphasise, Indian cosmology is based on the basicnumber “4”. The territorial structures organised according to the principle of the mandala reflect thecosmos and represent cosmological harmony. Therefore they were organised by basing on thesystems whose units have the numerical sizes of 5, 9, 17, 33, 65 (and so on). “The number 33 is onlythe last of a series, subsumable under the formula 2n+1, which recurs time and again in politicalcontexts in South East Asia.” The Mon kingdom in Pegu (Ramaññadeªa) was divided into threeprovinces: Pegu, Martaban, and Bassein. Each of them comprised 33 myo (the Burmese counterpartof the Thai müang), which means 32 myo and the capital. Sometimes the capital, centre andpersonification of the entirety, is not to be included. See Shorto 1963: 581. In the early period ofBangkok, Nakhòn Si Thammarat, as an elevated “province of the first class” (müang ek) had 36administrative departments (krom), whereas Ratburi, a “province of the fourth class” (müang cattawa)only had 14 krom. See Rujaya 1984: 48. Consequently the 36 panna of Phayao can also be under-stood as a variant model “2n(+1)”: 36 = 25 + 4 (for the four cardinal points)”.96 PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 225.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0725

26 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Chiang Rai97 and Chiang Saen,98 which was founded by King Saen Phu in 1328,had the same number of panna.99 Later on, Chiang Saen expanded territorially andfinally comprised 65 (= 26 + 1) panna.

Table 3: Panna in Chiang Rai (around 1300)

97 Tamnan phün müang chiang rai, from Rawiwan 1988: 14.98 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 59; CMC-TPCM 1971: 38.99 PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 285–86.

Nr. Transcription Phonetic Siamese(conventional) transcription transcription

1. Si Yòng Nam /sii6 ñOON1 nam5 hua6 ’¬ÕßπÈ”À—«À‘π‡«’¬ßHua Hin Wiang hin6 wiang1/

2. Phu Lao /puu1 law1/ æŸ‡≈“3. Chiang Rai Nòi /ciaN 1 haaj1 nOOj5/ ‡™’¬ß√“¬πâÕ¬4. Phian /phian6/ ‡º’¬√5. Chiang Lai /ciaN1 lai1/ ‡™’¬ß‰≈6. Tha Kong /taa3 kong6/ ∑à“°ß7. Wan /wan1/ «—π8. Chae Liang /cEE3 liang1/ ·™à‡≈’¬ß9. Chae Lat /cEE3 laat3/ ·™à≈“¥

10. Khwaen Òi /khwEEn3 ?OOj4/ ·•«à√ÕâÕ¬11. Fai Kaeo Nam Hua /faaj6 kEEw4 nam5 Ω“¬·°â«πÈ”À—«

hua6/12. Tian Lò Nòi /tian6 lOO1 nOOj5/ ‡•’¬√≈ÕπâÕ¬13. Chai Khru ... Phian /cai1 khuu1 ... phian1/ ‰™§√Ÿ... ‡¿’¬√14. Chae Lan /cEE3 laan5/ ·™à≈â“π15. Chae Lung /cEE3 luN1/ ·™à≈ÿß16. Sagna /sa’Naa5/ ´ßâ“17. Chang Khòng /caaN 1 kOON4/ ™à“ß§âÕß18. Chiang Lom /ciang1 lom1/ ‡™’¬ß≈¡19. Tin /tiin6/ µ’π20. Tò Na Mai Kiang /tOO6 naa4 mai5 µÕÀπâ“‰¡â‡°’¬ß•”

Kham kiang6 kham1/21. Tò Saeng /tOO6 sEEN1/ µÕ·´ß22. Tò Wai /tOO6 waaj6/ µÕÀ«“¬23. Khwaen Khong /khwEn3 khong1/ ·•«à√•ß24. Nòi Kham /nOOj5 kham1/ πâÕ¬•”25. Khwaen Nòi /khwEn3 nOOj5/ ·•«à√πâÕ¬

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0726



Nr. Transcription Phonetic Siamese(conventional) transcription transcription

26. Hit /hit1/ À‘Æ (?)27. Maha Khu pak Kok /ma’haa6 kuu1 paak2 ¡À“§Ÿª“°°‡≈◊Õß (?)

Lüang kok1 lÁaN1/28. Pao (“uninhabited”) /paw2/ ‡ª≈à“29. Maem /mEEm1/ ·¡¡ (?)30. Khwaen Dong /khwEn3 doN1/ ·•«à√¥ß31. Chiang Rung Nòi /ciang1 huN3 nOOj5/ ‡™’¬ß√àÿßπâÕ¬32. Chan /can1/ ™—π

Sources: MS, Hundius Microfilm Documentation, No. 660, Roll 17: “Tamnan müang ciang hai”,ff˚ 5/3–6/1; compare MS, Hundius Microfilm Documentation, No. 599, Roll 17: “Tamnanciang saen ciang hai”, f˚ 23.

Table 4: Panna in Chiang Saen and the adjacent regions (c. 1330)

Transcription Phonetic Siamese Number of(conventional) transcription transcription panna/na

Chiang Saen /ciaN1 sEEn6/ ‡™’¬ß· π 32 panna

including:

“Central” territory /kaang6 caw4 mÁaN1/ °≈“ß‡®—“‡¡◊Õß 9 panna(Kang Cao Müang)“Left-hand” territory /khwEn3 saaj5/ ·•«àπ´â“¬ 7 panna(Khwaen Sai)“Right-hand” /khwEn3 khwaa6/ ·•«àπ¢«“ 8 pannaterritory(Khwaen Khwa)

Border zones:

Müang Phayak /mÁaN1 pha’ñaak3/ ¡. ¿¬“° 2 pannaMüang Kai /mÁaN1 kaaj6/ ¡. °“¬ 2 pannaMüang Hai /mÁaN1 hai1/ ¡. ‰√ 1.500 naMüang Luang /mÁaN1 luaN6/ ¡. À≈«ß 1.500 naMüang Pukha /mÁaN1 puu1 khaa1/ ¡. æŸ•“ 1 pannaMüang Len Tai /mÁaN1 leen1 tai4/ ¡. ‡≈π‰µâ 8 pannaMüang Len Nüa /mÁaN1 leen1 nÁa6/ ¡. ‡≈π‡Àπ◊Õ 9 pannaMüang Palaeo* /mÁaN1 pa’lEEw1/ ¡. ·æ≈« 500 na

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0727

28 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Was the panna in all cases an administrative unit that was placed below the müanglevel? Müang Luang and Müang Hai had 1,500 na, which amounted to 1.5 panna,if one assumes that one panna in fact equalled 1,000 ricefields (na). According toour calculation, Müang Sat had 0.5 panna and Müang Cuat and Müang Hang only0.1 panna, i.e., one pakna. Could one panna, as a result of this, have spread overseveral smaller müang, whereas a very large müang embraced numerous panna?Were müang and panna two completely different categories, which do not fit in thehierarchical scheme, but represent parallel existing administrative concepts?Whereas the müang represents the older concept, which consisted of old familyorganisations and units based on villages and urban settlements, the panna wasobviously a later structure imposed on the network of müang. The new pannastructure facilitated the political and economic penetration of the country by theroyal centre.

There was thus a close connection between the panna and the localirrigation system (rabop müang fai √–∫∫‡À¡◊ÕßΩ“¬). Many panna were named afterrivers or canals. Panna Fang Kaen, one of the largest panna in Lan Na, covers30,000 rai of rice-cultivated areas, which are irrigated by three tributaries of theKaen River. Fang had three (according to other accounts, five) panna, which weredefined by three (or five) canals and divided from one another.100 Villages, whichshared water resources—rivers, streams, canals—and had common interests inutilising and maintaining them, formed a panna. Thus panna were co-operativeagricultural production units. Recruiting labour forces and levying taxes andtributes on the basis of the system of panna was therefore significant.

Transcription Phonetic Siamese Number of(conventional) transcription transcription panna/na

Adjacent territories:

Fang /faaN6/ Ω“ß 3 pannaMüang Sat /mÁaN1 saat2/ ¡. “¥ 500 naMüang Cuat /mÁaN1 cwaat3/ ¡. ™«“¥ 100 naMüang Hang /mÁaN1 haaN6/ ¡. À“ß 100 na

Total 3.700 na

* The manuscript SRI 81.060.05.038–038: “Lamdap latcakun wongsa nai müang lan na”, f˚ 7.Müang Palaeo comprised 5 panna accordingly.

Sources: SRI 81.069.05.038-038: “Lamdap latcakun wongsa nai müang lan na”, f˚ 7; CMC-TSHR,SRI 1982: 10; Tamnan müang ciang saen, Srisakra 1984: 247.

100 See Aroonrut 1989: 9.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0728



The importance of local irrigation for the system of panna is obvious in thecase of Sipsòng Panna. In 1570 the Tai Lü organised the müang, which were unitedunder the leadership of Chiang Rung, into 30 units by taking over the panna thathad been introduced in Lan Na several centuries before.101 A total of 12 pannawere organised, six on each side of the Mekong. The tributaries of the riverpartitioned the various panna from one another.102 The 12 panna each comprisedtwo to five of the old müang, which remained as administrative units under thepanna level. The country of the Tai Lü since then is called Sipsòng Panna, “[coun-try of the] twelve panna”.103

The panna system of Lan Na seems to have survived the Burmese con-quest. The evidence of its existence can be established in the chronicles until theearly eighteenth century.104 In a later period, the term panna was increasingly usedas an equivalent to the term müang. The 65 panna of Chiang Saen, which werementioned in the “Yonok Chronicle”, comprising the sphere of influence of ChiangSaen after the town on the Mekong (since 1701/02), had been step-by-step up-graded by the Burmans to be the political centre of Lan Na and of the adjacentregions (but without the old core region of Chiang Mai-Lamphun). Hence, amongthe panna of Chiang Saen one finds several panna called müang — such as MüangYòng, Müang Len Nüa, Müang Len Tai, Chiang Dao and Müang Phayak — thatonce controlled more than one panna.105 A well-known literary work of the TaiYuan, the Khao kawila (Poem of King Kawila, r. 1782–1816), used the term pannaas a synonym of müang. The term tang panna (µà“ßæ—ππ“) is used here as having the

101 Sumit 1983: 129. See also Lemoine 1987 and Dhida 1989.102 Thongthaem 1989.103 This literal translation is, however, problematic because panna was here used for administrativepurposes and no longer signified exactly “1,000 rice fields”.104 One version of the “Chronicle of Chiang Saen” reported around 1607 on the “75 panna of ChiangSaen” (˜ı æ—ππ“‡™’¬ß· π). Moreover, the chronicle mentions that in 1637/38 the Burmese KingSuttho Thammaracha (Tha-lun) appointed a certain Mün Luang Sulalücai as the administrator ofthe “region of the six panna Taeng” (tr. ·§«âπÀ°æ—ππ“·µß). See CSC-TMCS, Srisakara 1984: 277,280.

A manuscript gives the most recent reference to the persistence system of the panna, and infact in Chiang Saen, for the year 1709/10: The governor (phò müang) and the notables (khun sanam)of Chiang Saen resolved to divide Chiang Saen [among themselves]. Two thirds of the land were tobe given to Moya Nguan Chakhai (‚¡¬–Àß«π™§“¬), the Burmese sitkè, and one third to the twelvekhun sanam. The seven “panna on the left side” (panna sai) would be ruled by Chao Na Sai, theeight “panna on the right side” (panna khwa) by Cao Na Khwa and eventually the nine centralpanna (panna müang) were ruled by the ruler (cao) himself. See SRI 81.069.05.038–038: Lamdaplatcakun wongsa müang lan na, ff˚ 24/3–25/2.105 PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 285–86. An undated manuscript from the monastery Si Khom Khamnames eleven panna from Chiang Khòng, which were all indicated as müang, Müang Luai andMüang Ngao as well. See MS, Hundius Microfilm Documentation, No. 599, Roll 17: Tamnan ciangsaen ciang hai, f˚ 25.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0729

30 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


same meaning as the more colloquial term tang müang (µà“ß‡¡◊Õß), which can berendered as “foreign country”.106

It appears as if in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, theoriginal meaning of panna, associated with wet rice cultivation, disappeared andthe separation from the older meaning of müang became gradually blurred. Müangand panna became almost completely interchangeable, until the use of the wordmüang disappeared in the first half of the eighteenth century. This might be thereason for the relatively late introduction of an administration based on the pannain Sipsòng Panna, and why the panna was used there from the beginning as apolitical-administrative category without obvious reference to agriculturalorganisation. According to one source, the term panna is written in Tai Lü as phara(æ“√“),107 which is a Siamese synonym for müang.108

At the beginning of this section, evidence for the existence of the pannasystem was provided. It could be demonstrated that not only the earliest, but alsothe most numerous and striking evidence relates to Phayao. The political centre ofPhayao was located on the eastern bank of a big inland lake (Kwan Phayao), whichwas supported by the Ing and several other rivers. In the case of Phayao thefunction of panna within the local irrigation system becomes especially clear inmanuscript sources. Perhaps an administration based on panna already existed inPhayao at the beginning of the eleventh century, and it was enforced in thefollowing period on Ngoen Yang (Chiang Saen), Chiang Rai, and Fang. After theconquest of Hariphunchai, Mangrai also introduced the panna system in the southand west of Lan Na. In the 1340s, King Pha Yu is said to have divided Chiang Tunginto 7,500 na.109 Although one knows the names of some panna in the area ofChiang Mai (e.g., the panna Kum Kam and Fang Kaen), the exact divisions of suchimportant müang like Chiang Mai, Lamphun, and Lampang, are given. As for Phraeand Nan, historical evidence for the existence of a panna system does not exist.110

Perhaps, the system was not implemented until after the conquest of the two müangby Tilok in the mid-fifteenth century. A conclusive assessment of the pannasystem, concerning its origin as well as its historical development, is only feasibleon the basis of a careful study of the extensive corpus of Northern Thaimanuscripts.

106 Khao kawila — chabap singkha wannasai 1985: 18.107 This word, pronounced in Siamese as /phaaraa/, leads to the names of the holy Indian townV¡r¡¥as™, the Benares of today.108 Prawat khwaen sipsòng panna 1982: 29.109 CTC-PMCT, Thawi 1990: 34; CTC-JSC, S¡imöng 1981: 235–36.110 The “Chronicle of Nan” and other sources originating from Nan do not mention the term pannaat all. A vague reference is found only in the “Chronicle of Chiang Mai”. In the years 1486/87, it issaid, Siamese troops attacked Müang Hin, a luk panna of Nan (tr. ≈Ÿ°æ—ππ“‡¡◊Õßπà“π). See CCM-HP,Wyatt and Aroonrut 1995: 102; CMC-TPCM 1971: 69.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0730



3.3 The demographic dimension

The political importance and economic potential of Lan Na, like that of herneighbours and rivals, depended strongly upon the composition and distribution ofher population. Unfortunately no reliable statistical data, on which one could drawconclusions on the demographic situation in Lan Na before the end of theeighteenth century, is available. Censuses ought to have been carried out in earlyperiods, as the late eleventh century census of Phayao, discussed in the previoussection, demonstrates. However, the census figures, probably having a mainlysymbolic character, are certainly so much exaggerated that they cannot be taken atface value for any quantitative assessment. However, some basic considerationscan yet be derived from the relevant fragmentary information transmitted throughchronicles and contemporary historical sources.

The census which was conducted at the beginning of Si Còm Tham’s reignshowed that in the core region of the principality of Phayao there were slightlyover 100 villages, which were distributed in ten (real) panna. If a village had anaverage of 150 to 250 inhabitants, the population of the region, where almost oneseventh of today’s Northern Thai population live, ought to have been between 15,000and 25,000 inhabitants.111 Even if it is problematic to project the size of the popu-lation in the other regions of Lan Na, because of considerable demographic changesover the centuries, it is probably not unrealistic to argue that the total population inthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries lay in the range between 100,000 to 200,000people. The population of Sukhothai was small as well. In the core region of thekingdom that extended in the south to Nakhòn Sawan, the fourteenth centurypopulation did not exceed 300,000 people.112

During the fourtheenth to sixteenth centuries the population of Lan Naincreased considerably (see the discussion below), though we do not know on whatscale. Sun Laichen argues that the increased flow of commodities betweennorthern mainland South-East Asia and Ming China during that period reflectedthat population growth.113 A substantial increase of population is also documentedfor southwestern China (modern Yunnan, Guizhou and adjacent parts of Sichuan).According to James Lee’s study, the population of that region almost doubled,from three to five million, during the period 1250–1600. In Yunnan, comprising a

111 In 1980 there were 4.4 million people living in the eight northern provinces of Thailand; amongthese about 600,000 lived in the province of Phayao and amphoe Phan and Pa Daet, which werehistorically under Phayao, but today belong to Chiang Rai. See Sammano phrachakòn lae kheha[...] 1980: 5–6.112 This estimation is based on the calculation of the Thai archaeologist Phaitun Saisawang, quotedin Nakhòn 1985: 23.113 Sun 2000: 199.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0731

32 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


territory slightly smaller than that of present-day Thailand, an estimated twomillion people lived at the turn of the sixteenth century.114 Anthony Reed gives thepopulation of Siam (including Lan Na but excluding Isan) at 1.8 million withoutproviding details on how this figure was calculated.115 As to Lan Na, the first,though only partly, reliable census statistics are from the nineteenth century. Wehave calculated the probable population of Lan Na (without the adjacent Shanareas) at roughly 400,000 in the 1830s.116 The preceding three to four decades sawa substantial increase in population; it probably doubled, as the region graduallyrecovered from the ravages of the Burmese-Siamese wars in the late eighteenthcentury. Given the fact that the many disruptions of Lan Na society are ascribed tonumerous uprisings against Burma and forced resettlements of population to Burmaduring the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we might conclude that thepopulation of Lan Na as a whole was certainly higher at the beginning of Burmeserule than at the end of it.

As to the plain of the Ping River, where at present almost one quarter of thefive million inhabitants of Northern Thailand live, the Japanese historian YoneoIshii estimates the population at the end of the thirteenth century at probably over100,000. Ishii’s calculation is based on the consideration that the Ai Fa Canal(‡À¡◊ÕßÕâ“¬øÑ“) constructed under King Yiba, the last ruler of Hariphunchai, whichwas the prototype for the Mae Faek Irrigation Project that was completed in 1933,irrigates an area of 70,000 rai (11,000 ha) today.

If we assume that the thirty-four kilometres of canal excavatedunder Kun Fa allowed 10,000 hectares of new paddy fields to bedeveloped, and that, at 80 percent of today’s level, the yield wasbetween 2.0 and 2.4 tons per hectare, the annual production from asingle rainy season crop must have been between 20,000 and 24,000tons of paddy. With an annual per capital consumption of 225kilograms of paddy, this area alone could have comfortablysupported between 89,000 and 110,000 people, a figure clearly inexcess of a village population.”117

Ishii’s assumption of the production of rice per hectare (80 per cent of today’slevel) seems to be very optimistic, and he does not give a good reason for it. Ishiifurther argues that the construction of the Ai Fa Canal required materials andworkers which were far beyond the capacity of a small community settlement. This

114 Lee 1982: 713, 715.115 Reid 1988: 14.116 Grabowsky and Turton 2003: 204.117 Ishii 1978: 21.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0732



second argument seems to be quite convincing. He concludes: “Some form of stateinvolvement is implied”.118

Dhida Saraya sees a close connection between religious donations and theexpansion of settlements in the region of today’s Thailand. The rulers of Dvaravatiand Lopburi, later also the rulers of Sukhothai, had attempted to expand their terri-tories into previously mostly unpopulated new land by means of donating land andlabourers to Buddhist monasteries. The new religious centres and the supportingvillages received from the rulers often generous material advantages, which gavethem a quasi-model character. They could attract more settlers so as to reclaimadditional land for cultivation in the region and establish more new villages. In thisway the newly developed regions prospered. Since the king as “ruler of the land”(phracao phaendin æ√–‡®â“·ºàπ¥‘π) possessed the privileges of such a donation, thefounding of monasteries, the expansion of settlements and the consolidation of theroyal sphere of influence developed parallel to one another. For Lan Na, Dhidashows in the paradigm of the founding of Chiang Saen (1328):

The land was donated to religion; manpower was assigned to main-tain the monastery and to work the land. Craftsmen were donated.The donated land was fixed and made the domain of Wat Pasak. Wecan speculate that the purpose of the donation was not only reli-gious but for community expansion, and the communities wouldcontain people of many groups. A religious centre was founded andthe lands were cultivated, contributing to the expansion ofChiangsaen. [...]”119

Not only the sa¬gha, but also the king in Chiang Mai, received land taxesfrom the cultivation of monastery estates, namely one tenth of the produce.120 Inthe second half of the fifteenth century, donations to monasteries had taken onconsiderable dimensions (see Table 4). One of the most spectacular donations ofland to a monastery occurred in 1402, at the beginning of Sam Fang Kaen’s reign.In a donation made by the king and his mother, rice fields comprising 21,685units of measurement (called khao, “rice, paddy” — the size of a field was

118 Ishii 1978: 22.119 Dhida 1982: 160–61.120 Dhida (1982: 176) emphasises: “... the ruler of Chiangmai, associated with religious cults, couldclaim his rights to land. This was reinforced by land endowment. The donation of land was aneffective and practical means for the king to control the expansion of land in the Chiangmaikingdom or at least ensure that rights to land were recognised. Only the king and his family werethe donators of land. The king himself had authority to grant land to other individuals or officials.Thus they were bound to him.”

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0733

34 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


measured by the amount of seed-rice needed for sowing) and numerous templeserfs (from more than 246 households) were donated to the monastery SuwannaMaha Wihan in Phayao.121 The largest number of monastic endowments took placein the years between 1476 and 1501, namely during the reigns of Tilok, Ñòt ChiangRai, and Müang Kaeo. It was during this period that the inscription of Wat Mün Lò,dated 1487/88, elucidated the tax exemption for new rural settlers.122 However,one has to point to the fact that King Tilok, who was an ardent supporter andprotector of the “new Si¬halese” Wat Pa Daeng sect, ordered the destruction ofinscriptions in the Chiang Mai-Lamphun region, the centre of royal power,because all donations of land and manpower to monsteries, which had beenperformed according to the rite of the Suan Dòk sect, were no longer consideredreligiously meritorious (puñña).123 Note the hiatus of 56 years between thedonation to Wat Kao Yòt (Phayao, in 1412) and to Wat Canthara-arma (ChiangRai, in 1468). It seems that in the northeastern müang (Chiang Rai, Chiang Saenand Phayao), Tilok’s orders were not always implemented.124 Thus Table 4 distortsboth the spacial and the chronological distribution of monastic endowments in LanNa. There is evidence that in some cases temple serfs were transferred from along-established monastery to a newly founded one, eventually leading to theabandonment of the former.125

At that time, therefore, the king of Lan Na pursued a policy of activelypromoting the expansion of agricultural land with the aim of increasing riceproduction for a growing population. In Northern Thai customary laws muchevidence of these efforts of the king of Chiang Mai can be found. The mangraisat(Wat Chaiyasathan version) warns that the state does not need people who are “toocomfortable to build villages and establish dams, [...] the land [consequently] wasdestroyed”. The population should rather aim at building villages, canals and dams,so that luck would prevail.126 In particular fallow lands were to be cultivated, “sothat they are converted to rice fields and garden lands and villages are established.”127 One version of the mangraisat (from Wat Mün Ngoen Kòng) even demands:“Do not allow that ruler, aristocrats and free communities, the entire people, to

121 Inscription “Lamphun 9”, in: Yuphin 1988a: 231.122 Yuphin 1988a: 91.123 Prof. Dr. Prasert na Nagara points to this fact in his preface to the new edition of theM¢las¡san¡ Chronicle. See Prasert and Puangkham 1994: 8. In Lamphun only the famous inscrip-tion of Wat Phra Yün survived, possibly because it was situated in a forest outside the town.124 Ibid.125 Several cases from Chiang Rai are reported by Rawiwan (1982: 155). For example, in 1468 thegovernor of Chiang Rai donated 20 families, originally attached to Wat Chiang Lò, to the newmonastery Wat Canthara-aram.126 Mangraisat chabap wat chaiyasathan, quoted from Yuphin 1988a: 92.127 Quoted from ibid. [tr. À◊ÈÕ≈ÿ°‡ªìππ“‡ªìπ «π‡ªìπ∫â“π¥’].

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0734



preserve [such] forests, which shall better be cleared and cultivated and turned intorice fields for them.”128 The rural work force was highly appreciated by the rulingclass because it was in short supply and was needed for clearing and cultivating theextensive wasteland. As for taxation, there was no lack of incentives to assure alow tax liability:

Commoners, who make an effort to clear forests and grasslands, toreclaim overgrown rice fields for cultivation, as well as to till spoiledgarden land — in short, to use land for cultivation and settlements— shall have the right to earn their livelihood [without having topay taxes for a period of] three years. Only after that are taxes raised.[This is done] so that the commoners would aim at buildingvillages, constructing canals and dams so as to enable them to livein happiness and affluence. Those who found settlements, constructcanals and dams, cultivate rice fields and work in gardens are thesubjects of the land. According to the promise of the ruler, theyshall receive their wages. [...]129

Northern Thai customary law texts evoke the impression that the state wasinterested in converting wasteland into fertile rice fields. Those farmers whoreclaimed abandoned rice fields, overgrown by grass and creepers or even turnedinto dense forest, were given a substantial reduction in taxes over a period up totwo decades, depending on the hardships borne by farmers in cultivating or reclaim-ing the land.130 However, the law texts also mention tenants in more densely popu-lated areas who had to work on rice fields which were not their own, and one thirdof the harvest having to be delivered as land rent to the owner.131 It seems that theexpansion of agricultural land during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries tookplace mainly in the outer müang. The development of settlements came to a halt inthe first half of the sixteenth century, which is reflected by the drastic decrease inmonastery donations in the final stage of the last years of Müang Kaeo’s reign. Asa result of heavy casualties suffered in the campaign against Ayutthaya, naturalpopulation growth in Lan Na likewise remained stagnant. Perhaps the demographicdecline began around 1515, and resulted in a vicious cycle caused by war, fallingpopulation, decreasing rice production, sinking tax revenue, economic crisis, andpolitical anarchy.

128 Mangraisat chabap wat mün ngoen kòng, quoted from Yuphin 1988a: 92.129 Mangraisat chabap wat chiang man, quoted from Yuphin 1988a: 91; cf. Mangraisat chabap watsao hai, Griswold and Prasert 1977a: 152. See also Toosri 1992: 89.130 For details see the mangraisat, Toonsri 1992: 228.131 See Saowani 1996: 30.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0735

36 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


However, a Chinese record, preface dated 1576, still informs the readerabout the splendor of Lan Na, which deeply impressed Chinese merchants andother travellers that “[t]here are a great number of temples and pagodas in thisplace [Lan Na]. Each village has a temple, and each temple has a pagoda. Villagesnumerate as many as ten thousand, and so do pagodas.”132

Table 5: Monastic endowments in Lan Na (c. 1300–1700)

132 Li Yuanyang, Yunnan tongzhi, vol. 16, p. 3a. Quoted from Sun Laichen, 2000 : 249.

Inscription Year of Year of Name of Monastery serfs Land / animals(registr.-no.) inscription donation monaster (kha wat)

or donor*

Phrae 1 1339 1339 Wat Bang Sanuk 1 family animals(Phrae)

Lamphun 9 1411 1411 Wat Suwanna 246 households rice fields (na) ofMaha Wihan (hüan) 21,685 measures of(Phayao), king khao (seed-rice),and queen mother annual paddy tax:

4,686,000 bia orcowry shells

Phayao 44 1411? 1411? King and queen — rice field(s)mother

Lamphun 27 1412 1412 Wat Kao Yòt — rice field of 500(Phayao) measures of khao

annual paddy tax :55,000 bia

Phayao 47 1411? 1411? Wat Suwanna 11 villages rice field of 975Maha Wihan measures of khao(Phayao), kingand queen mother

Lamphun 12 1412 1412 Wat Kao Yòt — rice field of 500(Phayao) measures of khao

Chiang Rai 1 1468 1468 Wat Canthara- 20 families rice field of 300aram (Chiang Rai) measures of khao

— 1469 1469 Wat Ban Laeng donation to the —(Lampang?) monastery by the

population of thevillage of thesame name

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0736




or donor*

PSC, Vol. 3, 1476 1476 Wat Phrathat 5 (4+1) families 2 rice fields of 300No. 65 Lampang Luang measures of khao

(Lampang)

Chiang Rai 33 1479 1479 Wat Ban Yang 20 monks rice field of 20Mak Muang measures of khao,(Chiang Rai) annual paddy tax:

5.000 bia

Chiang Mai 10 1480 1480 Ku Wat Sao Hin 20 families rice field of 250(Chiang Mai) measures of khao

Lamphun 21 1484 1484 Wat Tham Phra — rice field (old),(Chiang Rai) annual paddy tax:

50,000 biarice field (new),annual paddy tax:82,000 bia

Lamphun 28 1485 1485 Wat Pa Ruak 1 family —(Chiang Rai) (4 persons)

Phayao 2 1488 1488 Wat Dòn Khram 20 families —

Chiang Rai 61 1488 1488 Wat Phu Khing 4 families 9 rice fields;(Chiang Rai) annual paddy tax:

20,500 bia;

Chiang Rai 61 1488 1488 Wat Pa Tan 1 family 3 rice fields,(Chiang Rai) annual paddy tax:

6,000 bia

Lamphun 18 1488 1488 Wat Weluwan 4 families —Aram (Lamphun)

Lamphun 31 1489 1489 Wat Kan Thom 4 villages (a); — (Chiang Mai) 4 villages and

12 persons (b)

Lamphun 23 1489 1489 Wat Khuam Chum 17 (10+3+4) —Kaeo (Lamphun) families

— (National 1489 1489 Wat Mahawan 6 families; rice field(s)Museum, (near Chiang 1 village (for saltChiang Saen) Saen?) production)

Phayao 9 1489 1489 Wat Phraya Ruang — rice field(s)(Phayao)

Phayao 57 1490 Wat Klang 4 persons, —(Phayao) purchased by

8,000 ngoen

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0737

38 VOLKER GRABOWSKY



or donor*

Phayao 4 1492 1492 Wat Wisuttharam several persons —(Phayao)

Phayao 6 1493 1493 Wat Nang Mün 10 families rice field of 4(Phayao) measures of khao,

annual paddy tax:2,500 bia

Phayao 26 1494 1494 Wat Aram Pa Nòi 2 families —(Phayao) (1 man, 4 women)

Phayao 7 1495 1495 Wat Aram Pa Ya 13 families rice fields; 2 areca(Phayao) trees, tax: 2,000 bia

Phayao 27 1495 1495 Wat Li (Phayao) 10 families rice fields of 1265(for monastery), measures of khao,6 villages for annual paddy tax:special services 818,000 bia(e.g. provisionof salt)

Phayao 39 1495 1495 Wat Còi Sae 20 families —(Phayao)

Chiang Rai 3 1496 1496 Wat Prasat 10 families rice fields, annual(Chiang Rai) paddy tax:

100,000 bia

Lampang 6 1496 1496 Wat Ban Dan 10 families rice fields, annual(Phayao) paddy tax:

300,000 bia

PSC, Vol. 3, 1496 1496 Wat Prathat 13 (7+6) families,No. 70 Lampang Luang purchased by

(Lampang) 5,480(2,810+2,670)ngoen

Chiang Mai 4 1497 1497 Wat Kaeo Lat 1 family and —(Chiang Mai) another 4 persons

Chiang Rai 63 1497 1497 Wat Dusita Aram 17 families —(Chiang Rai)

Phayao 8 1497 1489 Wat Pa Mai — rice field(s)(Phayao)

Phayao 8 1497 1497 Wat Pa Mai 30 families, 20 rice field(s)(Phayao) for Buddha image,

5 for ubosot andhò pitok each

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0738




or donor*

Phayao 9 1498 1498 Wat Phaya Ruang 12 persons rice field of 200(Phayao) measures of khao

Phayao 59 1498 1498 Wat Mün Lò — 28 rice fields of(Phayao) 1984 measures of

khao; 1 rice fieldof 6 rai and 12measues of khao

Nan 2 1500 1500 Wat Muang Phong 29 families 2 rice fields of 60(Wat Phra Koet, measures of khaoNan)

Lamphun 26 1501 (?) 1501 Wat Mahapho 113 (74+39) rice field(s)(Chiang Rai) families

Phayao 28 1501 1501 Cao Mün Lò 6 families —Mongkhon(Phayao)

™.¡. 4/2539 1502 1502 Wat Uthumphòn 10 families —Aram(Chiang Mai)

Chiang Rai 5 1502 1502 Wat Si Sutthawat 12 families —(Chiang Rai) (45 persons)

purchased by3,950 ngoen),6 further families

Phayao 10 1503 1503 Wat Ban Dòn 7 families —(Phayao)

Lamphun 15 1509 1500 Wat Phrathat 12 families rice fields; annualHariphunchai paddy tax:(Lamphun) 2,000,000 bia

Phayao 49 1510 1510 King (via Cao more than —Wan Mahat) 9 families

Lamphun 34 1512 1489 Wat Suwannaram — rice field(s)(Lamphun), king’sgrandmother(donor)

Lamphun 34 1512 1512 Wat Suwannaram 10 families 6 rice fields,(Lamphun), king’s annual paddy tax:grandmother 1,000,000 bia(donor)

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0739

40 VOLKER GRABOWSKY



or donor*

Phayao 1 1513 1466 Wat Nòng Kwang 1 village rice field of 30(Phayao) measures of khao;

Phayao 1 1514 1513 Wat Nòng Kwang annual paddy tax:(Phayao) 9.000 bia; and

areca plantation

Phayao 13 1516 1516 Wat Sipsòng 2 families —Hòng (Phayao)

Phayao 16 1516 1516 Phayao (?), 12 families —Cao Si (donor)

æ.∫. 415/2524 1520 1520 Wat Phra Koet 1 family 1 rice field,(Chiang Rai) annual paddy tax:

6,000 bia

Chiang Mai 26 1523 1523 Wat Yang Num 3 families rice fields,(Chiang Rai) annual paddy tax:

60,000 bia

Phayao 14 1523 1523 Wat Luang 10 families rice fields(Chiang Rai)

Phrae 9 1529 1529 Wat Buppharam 5 families rice field of 1,000(Phrae) measures of khao

Lamphun 12 1535 1535 Wat Phaya Ruang 15 households —(Phayao) (hüan, 20 of

which were men)

— (National 1554 1554 Wat Chiang Sa 5 (3+2) families rice field(s)Museum, (Chiang Rai, onChiang Mai) the west bank of

the Mekong)

Chiang Mai 7 1560 1560 Wat Luang 4 villages rice field(s),(Chiang Mai) annual paddy tax:

5,000 bia

— 1581 1581 — 2 villages (487 —persons listed, and 45 slave families)

Phayao 53 1595 1584 Wat Ban Yang several families —(Phayao)

1595 Wat Ban Yang several families(Phayao)

Chiang Rai 6 1605 under Wat Phra Luang “500” families —Mangrai- of Milakkhudynasty background

(Lua?)

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0740




or donor*

Lamphun 17 1611 1611 Wat Mahathat — rice field of 200 raiChiang Lae(Chiang Rai)

Chiang Rai 7 1617 1617 Wat Pha Khao 52 persons areca plantationPan (Chiang Rai) (including

25 men and27 women)

Chiang Rai 10 ? ? — — rice field(s)

— ? ? Wat Maha Sathan several workers —(in Chiang Kham,Chiang Raiprovince)

Phayao 19 ? ? ? — rice field of 100measures of khao

Phayao 37 ? ? Wat Thòng Saeng 18 (14+4) —(Phayao) families

Phayao 38 ? ? Wat Thòng Saeng 4 persons rice field(s)(Phayao)

Phayao 48 ? ? Wat Khwang 1 family (for —(Phayao) Buddha image)

Phayao 58 ? ? Wat Khao Ratcha- 10 families —sathan (Phayao)

Explanations:? Year of the inscription is not recorded.— No information on this topic included in the inscription.* Province in brackets, if not in accordance with the province indicated in the inscription register

(column 1).

Sources: Carük lan na 1991 (Part 1: Inscriptions from Chiang Rai, Nan, Phayao and Phrae);Prachum carük müang phayao 1995;Penth/Phanphen/Silao (Vols. 1, 3 and 4) 1997–2000;Prachum sila carük — PSC (Vol. 3) 1965.Thoem and Prasan 1974.Penth 2003.133

133 Penth’s excellent study of rice and rice fields in old Lan Na, based on the epigraphical evidence,was consulted after this article had already been finalised. It is a mine of information on how landwas donated to monasteries and taxed.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0741

42 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


3.4 Forced resettlement during the Mangrai dynasty

As a reaction to especially severe population losses, King Müang Kaeoencouraged immigration from the Shan and Tai Khün regions to Lan Na. In theyear 1517 alone more than 23,000 people migrated to Lan Na from the three Shanprincipalities, Chiang Thòng, Müang Nai, and Müang Kai. The immigrants, whowere obviously induced by the prospect of getting fertile land and receiving otherpreferential treatment, arrived with 38 elephants and 250 horses, as reported by thechronicles. They found new places of settlement in all parts of Lan Na. The ruler ofMüang Kai settled with 1,200 followers in Fang. Another important region forresettlement was Phrao, located 80 km to the north of Chiang Mai.134 The resettle-ment obviously helped to cover the increasing demand for labour for the ambitiousconstruction projects of Müang Kaeo, such as the renovation of the city walls ofChiang Mai and Lamphun (c. 1517). However, the influx of Shan was onlypartially based on voluntary migration, because at the beginning of February 1520,some of the Shan who came to Lan Na returned to their homes on the Salween withthe soldiers of the king in pursuit.135

Half a century earlier, in 1462/63, King Tilok launched a military campaignagainst the Shan state of Müang Nai, a campaign he was asked to undertake byrival Shan rulers. This campaign resulted in the subjugation of Müang Nai andeleven other Shan müang situated mainly on the west bank of the Salween River,i.e., beyond the sphere of influence of Chiang Mai. The pacification of theseregions did not result in annexation by the victor, but in the deportation of asignificant number of their inhabitants to the core region of Lan Na. In all, 12,328war captives (khòi ¢âÕ¬)136 were resettled in Phrao, Kao Còng and in panna Takan,located roughly 30 km to the west of Chiang Mai.137

134 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 106; CMC-TPCM 1971: 70; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 61;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 148–49; see also PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 366. A manuscript (HundiusCollection: Pün wongsa mahakhasat tanglai [...], f˚ 52) mentions only 2,322 [instead of 23,220]resettlers, among them 200 [instead of 1,200] found their homes in Fang. Most probably thediscrepancies in the numerical data can be traced back to errors attributed to the scribes, becauseanother copy of the same chronicle (ibid., ff˚ 82/5–83/2), as far as the numerical data on the resettlersare concerned, conforms with other sources.135 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 106; CMC-TPCM 1971: 70; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 61;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 149; see also PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 368.136 PY (Prachakitkòracak 1973: 340) translates the Northern Thai term khòi into the Khmer-derivedloan word chaloei, “prisoner of war”.137 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 89; CMC-TPCM 1971: 64; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 51;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 134–35. On tracing the locations of panna Takan see Notton 1932: 53, fn. 2.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0742



The conquered Shan müang were not adversaries on a par with ChiangMai. The forced resettlement of thousands of Shan turned out to be a twofoldadvantage for the victor. It disciplined the subjugated polities and, at the sametime, strengthened the population potential in the core area of Lan Na. However,such a strategy could be counterproductive, if the adversary possessed strongsocio-political structures and was far superior in terms of demographic andeconomic resources. Then it was considered appropriate to act with restraint, evenafter gaining military successes, in order to avoid devastating counter-attacks. Suchawareness may have motivated Tilok to criticise the governor of Nan for his rashaction taken after his victory against the “Kaeo” (Vietnamese),138 who had attackedthe neighbouring kingdom of Lan Sang (Laos) and whose forces were also threat-ening the eastern parts of Lan Na. Tilok forbade the resettlement of the “Kaeo”captives in the territory of Nan, as this would have strengthened the governor’sdemographic and thus political power base. Possibly in order to prevent thehitherto autonomous vassal müang of Nan from challenging Tilok’s royalauthority, the victorious governor was transferred to Chiang Rai which meant ademotion. The Nan Chronicle reports:

In the poek set year, C.S. 842 (AD 1480/81), the Kaeo attacked Nanwith an army. Phaña Tilok ordered Tao Kha Kan to encounter themwith a force of 40,000. He defeated the Kaeo and killed numerousenemies. He then cut off their heads and sent them to Phaña Tilok.He also captured elephants, horses and families, which he presentedto Phaña Tilok. Hence Phaña Tilok spoke: “The Kiao [Kaeo]suffered a defeat and fled. This is enough, isn’t it? Why do youpursue the Kaeo, have them killed, and take numerous Kaeofamilies [as prisoners-of-war]? The wrath of enemies and therevenge of tigers are cruel. The Kaeo [families] shall not be settledin Nantaburi [Nan].” Then Tilok transferred Tao Kha Kan to ChiangRai.139

138 Kaeo in Northern Thai and Lao sources normally refer to Vietnam and the Vietnamese, but couldalso include the Tai people living in the mountainous region of north Vietnam. But in the context ofthe following quotation the Kaeo refers to Vietnam, as appears in the Lao sources. See Sila 1964:45–46.139 NC-PMN, SRI 82.107.05.043–043: Pün wongsa mahakhasat tanglai [...], f˚ 105/2–4. [tr. §—π‡∂‘ß®ÿÃ °√“™ ¯ÙÚ µ—«ª≈’‡ªî°‡ µ ·°«‡Õ“‡ ‘°¡“µ°‡¡◊Õßπà“πæ√–¬“µ‘‚≈°¡’Õ“™≠“À◊ÈÕ∑â“«¢“°“π§ÿ¡‡Õ“√‘æ≈ Ù À¡◊Ë√ÕÕ°µâÕπ√∫·°« ∑â“«¢“°“π ¡’™π–‰¥â¢â“·°«µ“¬¡“°π—°À—Èπ·≈â« §Áµ—¥‡Õ“À—«·°«â∂«“¬æ√–¬“µ‘‚≈°·≈ ‰¥â™â“ß¡≈â“•Õ∫•—«¡“∂«“¬æ√–¬“µ‘‚≈°¡“°π—° À—Èπ·≈ ‡¡◊ËÕπ—Èπæ√–¬“µ‘‚≈°°≈à“««à“ ‡°’¬«[·°«]§â“πæà“¬Àπ’§Á¥’·≈ ¥—ßÀ√◊Õ æâÕ¬‰≈à·°«‡Õ“§√Õ∫§√—«·°«¡“‡ªπÕ—π¡“°©—ππ’È ‡«π‡ ‘°‡«π‡ ◊Õπ’È∫à¥’™–·≈ ∫à§«√À◊ÈÕ¡—πÕ¬àŸ‰π‡¡◊Õß π—π∑∫ÿ√’∑’Ëπ’È·≈ «à“Õ—Èπ·≈â« §ÁÀ◊ÈÕ∑â“«¢“°“π‰æÕ¬àŸ‡™’¬ß√“¬À—Èπ·≈] See also NC-PMN-W, Wyatt 1994: 57. The more liberal English translation ofWyatt deviates slightly from that of the present writer.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0743

44 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Before the mid-fifteenth century, Lan Na had already received large scale popula-tion resettlement directed by the state, either voluntary migrations or forced depor-tation of prisoners of war. The Chiang Mai Chronicle reports the transfer of “500hand workers’ families” from “Pagan-Ava” to Wiang Kum Kam, Chiang Tung andother places in Lan Na by Mangrai.140 For the late thirteenth century, however, thisepisode holds little historical credibility, because evidence of military conflictsbetween Mangrai and the Mon in Lower Burma needs to be verified by otherhistorical sources. This was probably an event that was invented or reconstructedsubsequently, so as to let the fame and splendour of the Mangrai dynasty, in viewof the humiliation suffered from the Burmese occupation, shine more brightly.

Siamese sources report a forced resettlement which went in the reversedirection — namely from Lan Na to Siam. Around 1385, troops from Ayutthayainvaded Lan Na. The Luang Prasoet Chronicle mentions only the futile attempt ofthe conquest of Lampang (1386),141 whereas other versions of the Royal Chroniclesof Ayutthaya mention also a successful campaign of King Bòrommaracha I againstChiang Mai (1384).142 While the then ruler of Chiang Mai (Kü Na) was not in theposition to offer resistance and left the town with some followers, his son (ÑòtChiang Rai) surrendered and was appointed the new ruler by Bòrommatrailokanat.The Siamese king “ordered that those Lao (here: northern Thai) who had beendriven down from Chiang Mai be sent on to be kept in the cities of Phatthalung,Songkhla, Nakhòn Si Thammarat and Canthabun”.143 Northern Thai sourcesmention briefly the war with Ayutthaya, but no deportation. Without giving aspecific date for the event, the Chiang Mai Chronicle claims that the Siamese at-tack on both Lampang and Chiang Mai failed: “The Southerners were broken, andfled back to the South.”144 An indirect confirmation of the Siamese version is foundin the Chiang Tung Chronicle, according to which around 1387 Cao Ai Òn, theruler of Chiang Tung, seeing it as his duty came with his military to support theexhausted “Müng Yuan” (i.e., Lan Na) army and ended up as Siamese prisoner ofwar at Sukhothai.145

140 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 38; CMC-TPCM 1971: 24; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 51–52; PY,Prachakitkòracak 1973: 261–62.141 PPKSA-LP, PP 1/1 1963: 132.142 Whereas the PPKSA-LP dates the attack on Lampang at 1386 in accordance with the CMC,according to other versions of the Ayutthaya Chronicle this took place in 1382, followed two yearslater by a successful war against Chiang Mai. See Cushing 2000: 12.143 Cushman 2000: 13.144 Quoted from CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 66. Jinak¡lam¡l™pakara¥a†, on the other hand,fails to mention the Siamese invasion at all. See JKM, Ratanapañña 1968: 127–28.145 See CTC-PMCT, Thawi 1990: 35-36. However, these events are not mentioned in CTC-JSC,S¡imöng 1981: 237–38.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0744



During the fierce struggles for hegemony between Lan Na and Ayutthayathroughout the Sukhothai-Phitsanulok region, the increasingly superior strategiesthat aimed at persistently weakening opponents through depopulation of the frontierregions gained momentum. Vague indications in the Royal Chronicle of Ayutthaya(Luang Prasoert version) on deportations from Lan Na to Siam around 1444/45146

could not be substantiated in the Northern Thai sources. In 1461 Tilok suppresseda rebellion in Chaliang (Si Satchanalai), for a decade a southern outpost of ChiangMai.147 Probably in vengeance, the inhabitants of the pottery town famous for itsceramics were deported to Wiang Kalòng (Chiang Rai) and San Kamphaeng (ChiangMai), where they founded the “Northern Thai School” of the Sangkhalok-Sukhothaipottery.148

From 1507 onwards, Lan Na under King Müang Kaeo increased its light-ning attacks deep into the territory formerly belonging to Sukhothai. The opera-tions were not aimed at permanent conquest of the southern frontier regions thenoccupied by Ayutthaya, but at the deportation of the population there. Müang Kaeoprobably wanted to create a depopulated buffer zone to counteract the unrestrainedlong-term expansion of Ayutthaya to the north. To enlarge the impaired basis of hispopulation was another motivation for Chiang Mai’s attacks, which are to be viewedin the context of the mass migration of the Shan around 1517, discussed above.The Siamese reacted with a similar strategy, through which they deported numer-ous war captives from the southern peripheral regions of Lan Na such as Phrae andLampang. The military interventions of Ayutthaya in the conflict of succession tothe throne of the Northern Thai in 1545/46 prevented further raids of the Tai Yuanon the region around Sukhothai.149

4. Decline and fall (1515–1558)

The reign of King Müang Kaeo marked the heyday of Lan Na’s politicalpower and her cultural blooming, but at the same time the beginning of her ruin.The almost incessant military confrontations with Ayutthaya since the beginningof the sixteenth century had resulted in losses of population that seriously

146 PPKSA-LP (PP 1/1 1963: 135) mentions a Siamese attack on the area (tambon) of Pathai Kasem.A total of more than “120,000 prisoners of war” was captured. Wood (1924: 83) considers that thismust have concerned an untraceable “Pathai Kasem”, a location in the vicinity of Chiang Mai.147 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 88–89; CMC-TPCM 1971: 71; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 123–24.See also Griswold and Prasert 1976: 137 and 148–49.148 On Tilok’s military expedition in 1461/62 to the region in Sukhothai and Phitsanulok see PPKSA-LP, PP 1/1 1963: 136. Lilit yuan phai also mentions the inhabitants of Chaliang who were deportedby the Tai Yuan troops. See Griswold and Prasert 1976: 149.149 See Usanee 1983: 129; Pritsana 1973: 46.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0745

46 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


weakened the power base of the king. In the year 1508, a Siamese army conqueredPhrae; the troops from Nan repulsed the invaders but suffered many casualties.150

The embittered fighting for Lampang between the Tai Yuan and Siamese lastedseven years. In the final stage of Müang Kaeo’s reign the war losses had reached acritical point. In 1523 the king was involved in a conflict of succession in ChiangTung. Both local princes competing for the throne sought military help from LanNa and Saen Wi. More than 20,000 soldiers were mobilised from various regionsof Lan Na in support of the prince who was friendly to Chiang Mai. The expeditionto Chiang Tung ended in a military disaster. Five high-ranking generals, includingthe governors of Chiang Rai and Müang Nai, were killed.151 “The Tai Yuan fled tothe south, numerous Tai Yuan soldiers fell, and a large number of elephants andhorses were lost”, reports the Chiang Tung Chronicle, and it continues, “Saen Ñisuffered a defeat and fled to Chiang Saen. Phaña Ñòt Chiang Rai had SaenÑi executed in Chiang Saen and appointed Cao Chiang Khòng the Governor ofPhañak (Phayak).”152 In the period between 1515 and 1523, not less than ten high-ranking aristocrats of Lan Na lost their lives in wars.153 These losses certainly hadconsequences for the political stability of the country.

Besides the military defeats in the last decade of the reign of Müang Kaeo,which in particular contributed to a serious lack of able-bodied men, the popula-tion suffered additional losses from natural calamities. In the year before the deathof Müang Kaeo, the Ping River flooded its banks after heavy rainfalls and inun-dated a large part of the city of Chiang Mai. “Countless people were drowned in theflood and died”, remarks the chronicler.154 As a result of unhygienic conditionsperhaps many more inhabitants died in epidemics.

King Müang Kaeo passed away leaving no son behind him. The PrivyCouncil elected Müang Kaeo’s younger brother Ket as successor on 5 February1526.155 The new king was previously the governor of Müang Nòi, which seems tohave been a relatively unimportant frontier müang to the west of Lan Na inhabited

150 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 104; CMC-TPCM 1971: 69; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 59;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 146.151 CMC-TPCM 1971: 71; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 62; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 150–51; cf. PY,Prachakitkòracak 1973: 370–71.152 CTC-PMCT, Thawi 1990: 44.153 Saraswadee 1986: 38.154 Quoted from CMC-TPCM 1971: 71; see also CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 108.155 It was the eighth day of the waning moon in the fifth month of the dap lao year, C. S. 887. CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 108; CMC-TPCM 1971: 71; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 63. According toNotton’s translation, it was the eighth day of the seventh month of the year dap lao. It seems thatthere is a reader’s mistake, for the Northern Thai numbers 5 and 7 look rather similar. See CMC-N,Notton 1932: 151. JKM (Ratanapañña 1968: 184) gives “the fifth day of the month Vis¡kha” (theeighth month of the Northern Thai calendar) of the year C.S. 888, namely April 16, 1526, as the dateof the death of the monarch.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0746



by Shan. He obviously did not have his own dynastic power base (Hausmacht) inChiang Mai. His reign, as a whole weak and uneventful, ushered in an era of politi-cal crises; the control of the capital over the outer regions declined. In September/October 1535, the governor of Lampang together with two high-ranking officialsplotted a coup d’état, which, however, was discovered just in time. The king hadthe ringleaders of the revolt executed. Three years later his luck ran out; in 1538Tao Cai (Tao Sai Kham), Ket’s own son, took over the throne and sent his fatherinto exile to Müang Nòi.156

The new king likewise did not possess a significant dynastic power base,and a controversial decision on personnel, viz. the nomination of a new governorof Chiang Saen, led to his fall. The same coalition of dignitaries who had helpedthe king to come to power plotted his fall in 1543. Tao Cai was accused of severeabuse of his authority: “[The king] lost his mind. He harassed the population un-scrupulously”.157 The hatred for the ruler was so great that the people had himexecuted. Ket returned from exile and ascended the throne once again. However, inhis second reign no success was achieved, and in 1545 Ket was assassinated byaristocratic conspirators in front of the royal palace. The background to this actionis not reflected in the written records. With regards to the two reigns of King Ket,the chronicles mention only that the king participated in a magnificent royal bargeprocession on the occasion of the ordination of monks who belonged to the sect ofWat Pa Daeng.158

After the violent deaths of the last two kings, Lan Na was plunged intochaos and anarchy for five years. The aristocrats of the country were divided intotwo factions along the country’s east-west axis. The nobility in Chiang Mai,Lamphun and Chiang Tung formed a western group, whereas in the east of Lan Nathe governors of Chiang Rai, Chiang Saen and Lampang created a united counter-coalition. At first, Saen Khao, son of the governor of Chiang Khòng and a leadinghead of the aristocratic conspirators against Ket Cetthalat, took the initiative. Heoffered the crown to the ruler of Chiang Tung, who declined to accept. Thereuponthe ruler (cao fa ‡®â“øÑ“) of Müang Nai was asked. He in fact gave his consent, “butdid not turn up in Chiang Mai on time”.159 Meanwhile, a meeting of the counter-

156 Some manuscripts mention the exile of Ket Cetthalat to Nan (see SRI 81.088.05.082: Nangsüpün müang ciang hai ciang saen, f˚ 9 [tr. ªßæ√–‡¡◊Õß‡°¥À◊ÈÕ‰ªÕ¬Ÿà‡¡◊Õßπà“π]) or to Müang Nai (see SRI81.069.05.038–038: Lamdap latchakun wongsa nai müang lan na, f˚ 13). The Mingshi-lu suggeststhat Ket’s forced abdication occurred one year earlier, in 1537, as in November 1537 a new “ruler ofLan Na” asked the Chinese emperor for recognition as the legitimate vassal king. This request wasgranted. See Winai 1996: 150.157 Quoted from PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 380; see also CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 109;CMC-TPCM 1971: 72; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 64; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 153.158 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 109; CMC-TPCM 1971: 72; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 64;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 153; see also PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 380.159 Quoted from CMC-TPCM 1971: 72.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0747

48 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


coalition had been held in Chiang Saen. The aristocrats who convened theredecided to offer the crown of Lan Na to Settha Wangso, the 14-year-old son of theLao king Phothisarat.160 Lan Sang under Phothisarat (r. 1520–1548) had developedinto the dominant political and cultural power in the upper Mekong region. Sincethe end of the fifteenth century, learned monks from Lan Na had spread the “ortho-dox” Buddhism of the “Lan Na School”, which had reached its heyday under Tilok,to Laos. The exemplary character of the Buddhist scholarship of Chiang Mai shapedLan Sang profoundly in the first half of the sixteenth century. King Phothisarat,who took a daughter of King Ket Kao as his consort,161 regarded himself after thedeath of his father-in-law and the onset of the fall of Lan Na as the protector ofthose religious and cultural ideals which bound the Tai Yuan and Lao with eachother.162

In the meantime, the threat to Chiang Mai increased. An army from SaenWi emerged in front of the gate of Chiang Mai and demanded vengeance for thedeath of King Ket Cetthalat, who obviously had many followers among the Shan.163

Although the assailants were repulsed, they withdrew to Lamphun and called forhelp from Siamese troops from the Sukhothai region. In the meantime, the troopsof the counter-coalition from Chiang Saen arrived at the capital and had theconspirators around Saen Khao executed for having committed regicide. In orderto prevent further anarchy the opposing alliance appointed the princess Cilapaphaas regent. She was to remain in office until Settha Wangso arrived in Chiang Mai.Further attacks of the Shan were repulsed, and with the Siamese likewise a modusvivendi was found after incurring heavy losses in fighting.164

160 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 109; CMC-TPCM 1971: 72; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 64;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 153; PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 381.161 The marriage of Phothisarat and Nang Ñòt Khan took place around 1532/33. The dynasticconnection of Lan Na with the relatively stronger Lan Sang served, from the view point of ChiangMai, as an insurance against the attempts of the Siamese expansion, but could also, from theperspective of Ayutthaya, be regarded as an encirclement aimed against Siam. See also Doré 1987:738.162 Was it a surprise that a section of the political elite of Lan Na, in particular those of the borderzones in the north-east adjacent to Lan Sang, looked towards Luang Prabang and saw in SetthaWangso, the grandson of Müang Kaeo, the suitable heir apparent? On the development of Lan Sangin the beginning of the sixteenth century see Sila 1964: 46–54.163 Probably the attackers had the direct support of the Burmese king as the Lao sources claimed.See Saveng 1987: 56.164 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 110-13; CMC-TPCM 1971: 72–74; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982:64–67; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 153–57; PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 381–86.Queen Cilapapha recognised the sovereignty of Ayutthaya and sent tributary gifts to the Siameseking. See MS, Hundius Collection: Pün wongsa mahakhasat tanglai [...], f˚ 56.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0748



The Lao crown prince arrived on 10 May 1546165 at Chiang Saen, stayedthere for three weeks and travelled in triumphal procession via Chiang Rai to ChiangMai, where he arrived on 18 June of the same year.166 Two weeks later, on 2 July167

Settha Wangso was enthroned as the King of Lan Na and married the two daugh-ters of the late ruler. However, Settha Wangso only resided in Chiang Mai for twoyears, not long enough to find a decisive solution for the disrupted country with thehelp of his advisors. When the young ruler of Lan Na learned of the death of hisfather, King Phothisarat, he left Chiang Mai on 8 August 1548168 and rushed toLuang Prabang, where he had to suppress a rebellion of the aristocracy.169 He tookthe Phra Kaeo, a legendary Buddhist image made of jade (“The EmeraldBuddha”),170 with him. After his coronation in Luang Prabang, Settha Wangso ruledas King (Saiña) Setthathilat [Setthathirat] in personal union over two kingdoms,Lan Na and Lan Sang. Due to his absence in Chiang Mai, the civil war in Lan Narevived. In 1549, the troops from Phrae and Laos (Lan Sang) launched an attack,without success, on Chiang Mai.171

165 On the seventh day [Saturday], the tenth day of the waxing moon in the ninth month of the yearC.S. 908. The day, however, fell on a Monday.166 On the fourth day [Wednesday], the fifth day of the waning moon in the tenth month of the yearC.S. 908. The day, however, fell on a Friday.167 On the fourth day [Wednesday], the fourth day of the waxing moon in the eleventh month of theyear C.S. 908. The day, however, fell on a Friday.168 On the fifth day of the waxing moon in the twelfth month of the year poek san, C.S. 910. Severalversions of CMC (such as CMC-TPCM and CMC-N) give the year C.S. 909; but all versionscorrespond with the 60 year cycle. The poek san year is the “year of monkey, the tenth year of thedecade” and could only be C.S. 910.

The Lao sources deviate from the dating of the Northern Thai chronicles by only two years.They give 1550 as the year of the death of King Phothisarat and claim that Settha Wangso [laterSetthathilat] arrived in Chiang Mai in 1548. See Sila 1964: 52–55.169 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 114; CMC-TPCM 1971: 75; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 68;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 158; PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 388–89. The rebellious aristocrats,“military commanders of the southern wing” (æ«°‡ π“ΩÉ“¬„µâ), wanted to help a half-brother of thecrown prince to be on the throne. See Sila 1964: 55.170 According to one legend, in 1464 lightning struck at a figure of the Buddha made of gypsum ina pagoda in Chiang Mai. The figure broke and a sitting Buddha made from one piece of jade wasrevealed. The Jade Buddha first found its home in Chiang Rai and from 1486 onwards in ChiangMai. Since then it was a sort of palladium, a function which it also served after 1548 in Laos, untilthe Siamese, after suppressing the uprising of Cao Anu (1828), brought it to Bangkok, where itremains in Wat Phra Kaeo in front of the royal palace. On the history of the Emerald Buddha untilit was brought to Luang Prabang see SRI 80.047.05.019–019: “Tamnan pha müang kaeo”.171 See CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 115; CMC-TPCM 1971: 75; CMC-N, Notton 1932: 159.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0749

50 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


As the chronicler remarks, for three years “a period of great discord”prevailed.172 It was a period without a ruler, a de facto interregnum. Not until thebeginning of 1551 did Setthathilat officially abdicate in favour of his queenCilapapha. It is not clear whether Cilapapha indeed ascended the throne the secondtime and ruled until 1553 as the Lao sources claim.173 Anyhow the Northern Thaichronicles report unanimously that immediately after the abdication of the Laoruler in Chiang Mai the Privy Council held a meeting. The Privy Council, to whichalso the sangkharat, the leader of the sa¬gha of Chiang Mai, belonged, did notcomply with Setthathilat’s wishes; on the contrary they elected Mae Ku, a prince ofMüang Nai, to be the new king. He was a descendant of one branch of the Mangraidynasty which could be traced back to Mangrai’s son Khüa.174 “The Chiang RaiChronicle” reports that Mae Ku “had fled and entered monkhood in Müang Nai”.Concerning the more exact circumstances of his ordination, no information isprovided in the sources. Thus it would have been interesting to know from whomMae Ku had to run away to Müang Nai: was he fleeing from his rivals in ChiangMai? Or did Mae Ku enter the monastery only after he had been elected king?In this rather unlikely case, one is tempted to suggest that the new ruler of Lan Nawanted to improve his royal reputation by means of the religious merit he had toacquire beforehand. Mae Ku arrived in Chiang Mai on 21 May 1551175 and on 22December 1551176 was solemnly enthroned.177

Despite taking the trouble to tighten up the administration of the land, MaeKu failed to get a new start. In mid-May 1552, the rulers (cao fa ‡®â“øÑ“) of MüangNai and Chiang Thòng turned up in front of the gates of Chiang Rai with a power-ful army. Reinforced by troops of the governor of Fang, the two Shan princes con-quered Chiang Rai and shortly thereafter Chiang Saen as well. The motives of theattackers and their relations to the new king, who also came from Müang Nai, areunclear. The ruler of Müang Nai, the leader of the invasion force, could have aimedat the territorial and political expansion of his own principality.178 It is possible thata secret pact was concluded with King Mae Ku to impair Setthathilat’s supporters,who were deeply rooted in Chiang Saen and Chiang Rai. This idea seems not at allabsurd in view of the background of later events. In the year 1555, Setthathilat,who could not accept being deprived of power by princess Cilapapha, once morelaid claim to the throne of Chiang Mai. An army from Luang Prabang, in which

172 CMC-TPCM 1971: 75 [‡°‘¥‡ªìπ°≈’¬ÿ§¡“°π—°].173 Sila 1964: 56.174 Phün müang chiang rai, Saraswadee 1993: 49 [f˚ 17 in original text]. The concerned text reads:tr. [...] ∑â“«·¡à°ÿÕ—π‡ªπ‡™◊ÈÕ√“™«ß å Àπ’‰æ∫«¥Õ¬àŸ‡¡◊Õßπ“¬.175 On the fourth day of the waxing moon in the ninth month of the year C.S. 913.176 On the tenth day of the waxing moon in the fourth month of the year C.S. 913.177 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 115; CMC-TPCM 1971: 76; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 69;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 160; PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 391.178 First of all this very likely view is represented by Saraswadee 1988: 14.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0750



many Tai Lü also fought, was sent to re-conquer Lan Na. Chiang Saen fell, indeedafter combats suffering heavy casualties, at the hands of the Lao, but a furtheradvance of Setthathilat was blocked by the stiff resistance of Shan troops fromMüang Nai.179

The effective sphere of influence of Mae Ku did not extend far beyond thecore region of Chiang Mai and Lamphun, and it is revealing that the Chinese sourcescalled Chiang Saen, during the period of the Jiajing reign (1552–1566), the “King-dom of the Lesser Eight Hundred [Daughters-in law] (Xiao Babai)”, namely apolitical unit independent from Chiang Mai.180 One manuscript even mentions thatin the year C.S. 917 (1555/56 AD) “King Mae Ku marched with an army [out tobattle], but failed to capture Lampang”.181 The text does not give any clue whyMae Ku launched an attack on Lampang. Was it because there was unrest, whichwas perhaps connected to the fighting for Chiang Saen? A year later, in 1556/57,Mae Ku must have brought the situation in Lampang under control, because theking consecrated a relic in the monastery of Phra Mahathat Lampang.

Burma under King Bayinnaung (r. 1551–1581) had set about establishing agreat Buddhist empire and subjugating all her eastern and southern neighbours.Almost without resistance, Lan Na fell to the Burmese invaders. After a siege ofonly three days, Chiang Mai capitulated on 2 April 1558;182 within a few months,Lan Na was completely overrun by Burmese troops.183 The Burmese weresurprised that they encountered in Chiang Mai — in contrast to the likewise-con-quered Shan regions — almost no resistance:

In the year C.S. 920 [1558/59 AD] the king gained victory over allthe big and small lands, namely the land of the Shan as well as theland of the Lao and the land of the Tai Yuan in Chiang Mai.However, Chiang Mai did not put up a fight; her ruler came out andoffered his submission.184

179 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 116; CMC-TPCM 1971: 76; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 70;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 160–61; PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 391; Sila 1964: 56–57. The reports inthe Northern Thai and Lao sources stating that the Lao troops remained for a longer period areidentical. Setthathilat raised Chiang Saen to the status of royal harbour of Lan Sang. The controlover the coastal strips on the middle Mekong slipped [through the fingers of] Chiang Mai and waslost permanently.180 Mingshi Gao, Chapter 189, Liew n.d.: 37.181 [‡®â“·¡à°ÿ¬° °”≈—ß ‰æ‡Õ“‡¡◊Õß≈§Õ√∫à‰¥â]. See MS, Hundius Collection: Phün wongsa mahakhasattanglai [...], f˚ 57.182 The siege began on Wednesday, on the eleventh day of the waxing moon in the seventh month,the New Year day of the year C.S. 920, viz. on 30 March 1558. In fact it was not on the twelfth buton the eleventh day of the month Caitra. Here we follow the tables and procedure of calculation ofEade.183 CMC-HP, Wyatt/Aroonrut 1995: 118; CMC-TPCM 1971: 78; CMC-TSHR, SRI 1982: 73;CMC-N, Notton 1932: 164; PY, Prachakitkòracak 1973: 397.184 Maharachawong phongsawadan phama 2002: 67.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0751

52 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Which were the deeper causes of Lan Na’s fall that were responsible for the loss ofindependence? How far can these causes be dated back? Even the contemporariesgave no rational explanation in a modern sense. They saw first of all that it was thework of the spirits and demons in taking revenge for severe violation of ritualprescriptions (NT: khüt). But economic and ecological reasons were known as well,even if they were mostly mentioned as atypical incidents. A chronicle summarisesthe complex causes in eleven points:185

Cause 1: The corpses of the deceased would be removed from the CangPhüak Gate and — taking a crescent — brought to the Hua Lincorner, thereby destroying the ayu müang.186 Moreover, norespect was paid to the two Phaña Cang Phüak and to the twoPhaña Latcasi in the north of the city by sprinkling them withsacred water.187

Cause 2: Around the old wiang a new wiang was built, which like R¡huencircled the [old] wiang.188

Cause 3: In the city three sacrificial shrines, like the one of cedi, wereconstructed.189

Cause 4: The [entire] population caused damage to the Nòng Bua HokKò (pond).190 They scooped out the water until the pond driedup. The people went out and barricaded Huai Kaeo (a streamletin Chiang Mai).191

Cause 5: In the southern part of the town a monastery was constructed.192

185 SRI 82.112.05.091-091: Tamnan mae ku müang lan cang taek, ff˚ 18–20; see also SRI85.144.05.136: Tamnan lan na lan chang, ff˚ 20–23. Compare also with the related and alreadytranscribed manuscript Tamnan pün müang lan na ciang mai, SRI 1981: 17–22 [ff˚ 15–17 inoriginal manuscripts].186 Literally “Life of the Town”, to which the Monastery Cet Yòt (Ñòt) in the northwest of the cityof Chiang Mai is referred. See Saraswadee 1995.187 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚18/1–2: tr. ‡ªπ‡Àµª∂¡∂«√ 1 π—π¥â«¬Õ—π‡Õ“¢Õ√º’ ÕÕ°∑—ßªµŸ™â“ß‡º◊Õ°·≈‡°’¬« ‰æ∑—ß·®ßÀ—«√‘π¬”Õ“¬ÿ‡¡‘ß ·≈‰πæ√–¬“™â“ß‡º◊Õ° 2 µ—«À—«‡«’¬ß·≈æ√–√“™ ’ 2 µ—«À—«‡«’¬ßπ—π ¡—πæÕ§Á∫àÀ◊Õ‰º‰æÕ∫√¡ √– √ß ‰¥â¬·≈.188 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚18/3: tr. ‡Àµ∂«√ 2 π—π¥â«¬ â“ß‡«’¬ß‰À¡àÕ¡‡«’¬ß‡°≈à“À◊Õ‡ªπÕß§√“ÀŸ§“∫‡«’¬ßπ—π·≈.189 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚18/3: tr. ‡Àµ∂«√ 3 π—π¥â«¬°Õ°Ÿà‡À¡◊Õπ‡®¥’π—π‰«â¬ °—∫‡¡‘ß 3 ·Ààßπ—π·≈.190 Literally meaning “Lake of the six groups of Lotus plants”.191 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚18/3–4: tr. ‡Àµ∂«√ 4 π—π¥â«¬À◊Õ•π∑—ßÀ≈“¬‰æ°«√•«’ÀπÕß∫—« 6 °Õπ—π§Á¢“ßπ”‡ ’¬ À◊Õ·Àß Àâ«¬·°«§ÁÀ◊Õ•π‰æµ÷¥‡ ’¬À—π·≈.192 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚18/4: tr. ‡Àµÿ∂â«√ 5 π—π¥â«¬ â“ß«—µ‰«¬°àÕ‡«’¬ßÀ≈—ß 1 ¡’∑—ß«—πÕÕ°·®àß ‰µâ¬‰π‡«’¬ß π—π·≈.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0752



Cause 6: The wood for coffins was thrown away (i.e. not burned alongwith the corpses) and then used anew (in the country).193

Cause 7: The corpses of the deceased were taken and ceremoniouslyburned within the confines of the city.194

Cause 8: The corpses of the deceased were taken and burned by the water[bank of the Ping] on sandbanks and in the monasteries.195

Cause 9: All the inhabitants were prohibited to offer sacrifices to the guard-ian spirits of the city as well as to sacrifice the Inthakhin stonepillars,196 the six kumbhara, pu sae and ya sae,197 as well as [thespirits] in the hills of the North and the South.198

Cause 10: From the ninth to twelfth month [May/June to August/September] the inhabitants were recruited to cut down trees, fromthe crowns to the stumps. The [tree trunks] were to be sawn intopieces of one wa [c. 2 m] in length and then dragged to the river.Those who dodged [the work] would be sentenced to death. [Thepeople] must work day and night to cut down the trees of theforests. The cutting down of the trees and transporting them lastedincessantly, that means one cut the big trees from the ninth tothe new moon of the twelfth month, until the work was stopped.Between the fifth and eighth month [January/February to April/May] the forest workers rested. It was so every year. The wooddrifting on the river destroyed the dams on the banks. The peoplehad to restore [the dams]. After some time the dams eroded again.Nobody could plough the fields and transplant the seedlings.No matter in which river or in which stream, nowhere could the

193 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚18/4–5: tr. ‡Àµÿ∂â«π 6 π—π¥â«¬‰¡â‚√ßº’π—Èπ‡Õ“‰æ∑ÿ¡ ·≈â«æâÕ¬ «à“‡°∫‡Õ“‡¢â“ ¡“∫â“π¡“‡¡◊Õß·≈.194 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚18/5: tr. ‡Àµÿ∂â«√ 7 π—π¥â«¬‡Õ“¢Õ√º’ ß –°“π‡ºâ“‰π∫â“π‰π ‡¡◊Õß·≈.195 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, ff˚18/5–19/1: tr. ‡Àµÿ∂â«√ 8 π—π‡Õ“¢Õ√º’‰æ ß –°“π‡ºâ“¬—ß πÈ”·≈‡°“–´“¬·≈¬—ß«—µπ—π·≈.196 They apply to the three most important sites of Chiang Mai: the relic of the Monastery DòiSuthep (æ√–∏“µÿ‡®â“ ÿ‡∑æ), the relics of the Phra Kaeo (æ√–·°â«) and of Phra Sing (æ√– ‘ß) and theInthakhin pillars (‡ “À‘πÕ‘π∑¢’≈). Moreover, two albino elephants and two royal lions, which werewithin the city walls, are mentioned (tr. æ√–¬“™â“ß‡º◊Õ° Õßµ—«À—«‡«’¬ß·≈æ√–√“™ ’ Õßµ—«À—«‡«’¬ß).Further auspicious animals are the six elephants of the Maha Cedi Luang and the two Phaña Kho inthe lower part [namely in the south] of the city of Chiang Mai (tr. æ√–¬“æ≠–‚¶ 2 µ—«Õ¬àŸ‰µâ‡«’¬ß). SeeSRI 85.144.05.136: “Tamnan lan na lan cang”, ff˚ 4–5.197 Guardian spirits of the Lua, to which the Tai Yuan inhabitants of Chiang Mai offered sacrifices.198 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚19/1: tr. ‡Àµÿ∂â«√ 9 ¥â«¬À√â“¡•π∑—ßÀ≈“¬∫àÀ◊Õ‰æ‡≈’È¬ß ∫√‘°—¡¡å∫Ÿ™“·°¡‡≈’¬ß¬—ß‡∑æ⁄æ¥“Õ“√—°‡∂π∫â“π‡∂π‡¡◊Õß ·≈‡ “À√‘πÕ‘π∑¢‘π°ÿ·≈°ÿ¡¿—√∑—ß 6 •π·≈ ªŸÉ· –¬à“· –¥Õ¬‡Àπ◊Õ¥Õ¬‰µ§ÁÀ“¡ ‡ ’¬∫àÀ◊Õ‰¥¬‰æ‡≈’È¬ßÀ—π·≈.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0753

54 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


inhabitants find water [to irrigate] the rice-fields. Furthercutting down the trees was prohibited.199

Cause 11: The king entrusted scoundrels to collect the taxes. They wereall very busy extracting money from the people of the müang.Whatever they found was carried away.200

Seven out of the eleven above-mentioned causes are related to violation of ritualregulations, but Cause 4 and Cause 10 cite the unrestrained exploitation of naturalresources of the land as the causal factor. The drying up of the Huai Kaeo and otherwaters hampered the drinking water supply of the town. Moreover, the unscrupu-lous cutting down of trees in the forests (deforestation) in areas further away fromChiang Mai city upset the ecological equilibrium in the plain of the Ping River and,perhaps, also led to a reduction in rice production.201

The construction of “a new wiang near the old one” (Cause 2) obviouslyrefers to the complete renovation of the outer walls of Chiang Mai around 1517.At about the same time, Lamphun got a new brick wall. Three years later themonastery, which was under the patronage of the king, was renovated.

These were two extravagant religious and secular construction projects,which were a heavy burden on the royal budget and the population of Lan Na. Thelabourers and estates, which were donated for the maintenance of the monasteries,as well as other religiously motivated taxes, were at least partially lost in theproductive sector of the economy. Damage limited to natural catastrophes also gaverise to great deficits in the national finances. In 1530/31 a fire destroyed the newroyal palace built by Müang Kaeo. A year later, in February/March 1532, aconflagration broke out at Ban Ta Pae near Chiang Mai. The affected populationobtained from King Ket, the queen and the queen’s mother compensation amountingto 20,000 ngoen.202 Müang Kaeo and his successor tried to solve the financial

199 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, f˚19/2–5: tr. ‡Àµÿ∂«√ ‘∫π—π§—π‡∂‘ß ‡¥‘π 9 ‡¥‘π ‘∫ ‡¥‘π ‘∫‡Õ¥ ‡¥‘π ‘∫ Õß§Á‡°π•“π•π∑—ßÀ≈“¬‰æøíπ‰¡âµ—…‡§≈â“µ—…ª“¬¬“««“‡Õ“‰¡â«“ À◊Õ•π∑—ßÀ≈“¬‰æ√“°À◊Õ·º«π” ºâŸ‰¥À«‘¥§Á‡Õ“‚∑… ∂“πµ“¬À◊Õ√Õß¡“∑—ß«—π∑—ß•◊πøíπ√“°∑—ß«—π‰¡ÀπÕ¬∫à‡Õ“À◊Õ øíπ‰¡â ‰À¬à ·µà‡¥‘π 9 ÕÕ°‡∂‘ß‡¥‘π ‘∫ 12 ¥—∫ ®‘ß®–‡≈‘° ÕÕ°¡“Õ¬àŸ¬—ß∫“π‰π¬“π ‡¥‘π 5-6-7-8 π—π §Á∫àøíπ‡™◊ÈÕπ—π§Ÿàª≈’À—π·≈ ‰¡Õ—π‡¢“√àÕß¡“π—π§Á¡“‡∑¿πÌ •π∑—ßÀ≈“¬ ª≈â“π‡Õ“‰ à¬ π“π—π§ÁÕ¬“¥À≈ÿæ—ß‰æ •π∑—ßÀ≈“¬§Á∫à‰¥¬‰∂π“·≈À«à“π°≈â“ —°ª≈’À—π·≈ π”·¡à‰¥¬Àâ«¬‰¥¬ •π∑—ß À≈“¬∫à‡Õ“π”¡“„ àπ“‰¥¬π—ππ”Àâ«¬π—π·¡àπ—π ¡—π§Á∫àÀ◊Õ•π‰æøíπ∑’π—π·≈.200 MS, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, ff˚19/5–20/1: tr. ‡Àµÿ∂«√ 11 π—π¥â«¬¡À“√“™‡®â“¡’ Õ“™≠“À◊Õ•πæ“≈ ‰æ‡°∫ à«¬‰≈ √Ë”√âπª√–À¡“√‰æ√ΩÑ“¢â“‡¡◊ÕßÀ“ —ß®—°ÕÕ°®—°‡ ’¬ §Á∫à‰¥¬‡¢â“§Áπ—ß ‰Àπ‰ÀÀ—π·≈.201 In the manuscripts there are several indications on the outbreak of famines (NT.: tupphikkhaphaya∑ÿæ¿‘°¢¿¬–) around the mid-sixteenth century. See also SRI 85.144.05.136: Tamnan lan na lan cang,f˚ 15/1–2, 17/4, 19/4–20/1, and SRI 82.112.05.091–091: Tamnan mae ku müang lan cang taek,f˚15/2–3.202 MS, Hundius Collection: Phün wongsa mahakhasat tanglai [...], f˚53.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0754



problems by increasing taxes (Cause 11) as well as by monetary manipulation. Theresult of it was an inflationary development, which must have grave consequencesfor the autarkic agrarian society of Lan Na, as Hans Penth comments:

Within about 30 years, there seems to have occurred a rising ofprices, an inflation of over 40% which must have been a seriousproblem for a ‘national economy’ that was mainly based on agricul-ture for local consumption but not without an ‘industry’ and inter-nal and external trade. People at that time did not at all grasp whathappened to the ‘value of their money’ and thought that the spiritswere angry or that the conjunction of the stars was not good.203

The empirical foundation for this thesis, which looks obvious at first glance, isnevertheless weak. Penth refers to Notton’s remark that a variant of the CMC (amanuscript differing from that on which his translation was based) mentions themanipulation of the weights and the systematic devaluation of the cowrie currencyby several of the kings of Lan Na. According to Notton, Müang Kaeo (r. 1495–1526)devalued the currency from 100 units to 98 [units]. Among his successors, Ket (r.1526–1538) devaluated it to 80, Tao Cai to 70 and Mae Ku (r. 1551–1564) finallyto 58 units.204 We do not know which manuscript Notton relied on. However,Saraswadee Ongsakul discovered a phapsa manuscript from the monastery Pa Lan(District San Kamphaeng, Chiang Mai) that confirms Notton’s statement:

[...] The aristocrats and the officials should not act wrongly byruining the foundations of their country. There are three points to bementioned: They destroyed the “Thousand Bases”. [...] Moreover,they devalued the bia (cowrie currency) by reducing the value of100 but issued and spent it as 100. The three reasons meant abreaking of taboos (khüt). Our country will be in shambles. Ithappened as follows: Pha Müang Kaeo fixed [the rate] that 98 biashould be the value of 100 bia. Tao Ai Kao [Phaña Ket] decided that80 bia should be the value of 100 bia. Tao Cai defined that 70 biashould be the value of 100 bia. Tao Upaño [Setthathilat] decreedthat 60 bia should have the value of 100 bia. Pha Mae Ku fixed thevalue for 58 bia to be 100 bia. Because of the three reasons the

203 Penth 1994b: 23.204 Notton 1932: 164, fn. 5.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0755

56 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


rulers and the land were ruined. If less than 10,000 [bia] are raisedto 10,000 [bia]; if less than 1,000 [bia] are raised to 1,000 [bia]; ifless than 100 [bia] are raised to 100 [bia], this surely will lead tototal destruction.205

The manuscript confirms the systematic devaluation of the cowrie currency by atotal of 42 per cent within half a century.206 While analysing Northern Thai Palimanuscripts, Oskar von Hinüber came across colophons in which the prices ofproducing the respective manuscripts were given. Sometimes even the cost of thematerials (e.g., the price for a bundle of palm leaves) and the workers’ wages weredifferentiated. Von Hinüber draws the conclusion that the prices of the materialsbetween the years 1531/32 and 1588 had increased by 25 times, whereas theworkers’ wages had dropped slightly.207 As the data which von Hinüber used forhis calculation were taken from only eight manuscripts, four of which came from asingle monastery (Wat Si Bun Rüang), his conclusion is based on weak statisticalevidence. His basic idea of locating socio-economic data from the colophons ofNorthern Thai manuscripts, however, seems very promising. Extensive analyses ofthe colophons of the numerous manuscripts that are still awaiting evaluation mightproduce fruitful results.

As for the decline of the economy and the political disintegration of Lan Naduring the three decades after the death of Müang Kaeo, the monarch’s weaksuccessors or the selfishness of the aristocrats alone cannot entirely explain thedisaster. None of the five kings who ruled Lan Na after 1526 died as a reigningsovereign. They were either deposed, forced to abdicate, or murdered. Such greatturbulences at the highest level of state leadership would have shaken even themost stable society, with lasting consequences as well. On the other hand, ques-tioning the reasons for the fragile structures of state and society in Lan Na islegitimate; these were weaknesses, evident long before the eventual fall of Chiang

205 The quotation is taken from f˚29 of a manuscript with the non-authentic title prawattisat, kotmaiboran [ª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å, °ÆÀ¡“¬‚∫√“≥]. See Saraswadee 1996: 208. The quotation in the exact wordingreads: “tr. [...] ∑â“«æ√–≠“‡ π“Õ“¡“µ¬å ∫à§«√¥’≈‘¥¡â“ß ’¡“∫â“π ‡¡◊ÕßÕ—π„À≠àÀπ—°·∑â ¡’ 3 ª√–°“√ §◊Õ¡â“ßÀ≈—°æ—π 1¡â“ß‰ ‡¡◊Õß 2 ∑’ Õ—πÀπ÷Ëß≈—¥‡∫’È¬≈ß À◊ÈÕ¬âÕπ‡ ’¬√âÕ¬π—∫«à“À◊ÈÕæÕ√âÕ¬ ‡Àµÿ 3 ª√–°“√π’È¢÷¥ ·æâµ—« ·æâ∫â“π·æâ‡¡◊Õß ‡ªπ¥—Ëßæ√–‡¡◊Õß·°â« ·µàß‡∫’È¬ 98 À◊ÈÕ‡ªπ 100 ∑â“«Õâ“¬‡°≈â“ ·µàß‡∫’È¬ 80 ‡ªπ 100 ∑â“«™“¬ ·µàß‡∫’È¬ 70 ‡ªπ 100 ∑â“«Õÿª‚¬·µàß‡∫’È¬ 60 ‡ªπ 100 æ√–·¡à°ÿ ·µàß‡∫’È¬ 58 À◊ÈÕ‡ªπ 100 ‡Àµÿ 3 ª√–°“√π’È ·æâ‡®â“‡¡◊Õß·æâ∫â“π‡¡◊Õß·≈ Õ—π„¥°Á¥’ ∫àæÕÀ¡◊Ëπ«à“À¡’Ëπ ∫àæÕ 1,000 «à“ 1,000 ∫àæÕ 100 «à“ 100 ¬àÕ¡À◊ÈÕ«‘π“»©‘∫À“¬·≈ [...].”206 Obviously the amount referred to as “100 bia” mentioned in the above quotation represents thefixed point of the beginning of each devaluation. Not completely excluded is the textual reading,that the amount referred to as “100 bia” represents the original value of the cowrie currency beforethe respective devaluations. In this — rather unlikely — case the total inflation rate, according toour calculation, is more than 81 per cent [= 100 % - (0,98 x 0,80 x 0,70 x 0,60 x 0,58 x100 %)].207 Hinüber, von 1991: 11.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0756



Mai, but simmering in the “golden age” of the kings Trilok and Müang Kaeo undera splendid surface. It can hardly be treated as a mere coincidence that the rapiddownfall of Lan Na was preceded by the reign of Müang Kaeo, during whichambitious religious projects (construction of monasteries, donations of Buddhaimages, making duplicates of the Pali canon, etc.) were promoted.208 Moreover, asshown in the second section of this article the political and economic control by thestate centre personified by the king was by no means indisputable.

5. Conclusion

The kingdom of Lan Na was not a unitary polity. It had come into existenceafter the merger of two core regions: the plain of Chiang Rai and Chiang Saen inthe northeast and the Ping-Kuang river basin with Chiang Mai as its centre in thesouthwest. The latter emerged as the “winner” at the beginning of the fifteenthcentury. Tight control of manpower was crucial in this sparsely populated regionwhich was four-fifths mountainous areas. It is argued that the nai sip system oforganising the workforce was perhaps due to Chinese or Mongolian influencesprior to the founding of Lan Na. The territorial administration of Lan Na wascharacterised by the panna, administrative units below the müang level, whichseemed to have been restricted to rice-growing areas. The most detailed historicalevidence for the panna system is to be found in the northeastern region of ChiangSaen, Chiang Rai, and Phayao, which were its possible places of origin.

Notwithstanding attempts to centralise the administrative structure,notably during the reign of King Tilok (1441–1487), Lan Na nevertheless resembleda conglomeration of large autonomous müang rather than an empire built around aconsolidated core region, as was more or less the case for Ayutthaya (Siam) andAva (Burma). Even in the phase of Lan Na’s great expansion of power during thesecond half of the fifteenth century, the müang of the northeast maintained a highdegree of autonomy. In the period of decline (1526–1558) the north-south divisiondeepened. The final disintegration of Lan Na was precipitated by a combination ofpolitical, economic and demographic factors.

208 The following quotation taken from Aung Twin (1976: 231) on the thesis presented for the riseand fall of Pagan — change accordingly — may also be applied to the post Müang Kaeo era:

“[Pagan’s great King Aniruddha] had sown the seeds of self-destruction by making thesangha the main recipient for the flow of land and labour and thereby inviting the decentralisationof economic and political structures, a process which was to have serious repercussions for the statein the thirteenth century. By his actions he had created a new situation that his successors had toface — by changing — or perish.”

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0757

58 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Abbreviations

C.S. C¢®asakar¡ja (“Little Era” = Christian Era minus 638)CMC Chiang Mai ChronicleCSC Chiang Saen ChronicleCTC Chiang Tung ChronicleHP Hans Penth versionHSH Hò samut haengchat (National Library)JSC Jengtung State ChronicleJKM Jinak¡lam¡l™pakara¥a†LP Luang PrasoetN Notton versionNC Nan ChroniclePMCT Phongsawadan Müang Chiang TungPMN Phongsawadan müang nanPPKSA Phra-ratcha phongsawadan krung si ayutthayaPC Phayao ChroniclePSC Prachum silacarükPY Phongsawadan yonokSN Samnak nayok ratthamontri versionSRI Social Research InstituteTMP Tamnan müang phayaoTMSC Tamnan müang chiang saenTMY Tamnan müang yòngTPCM Tamnan phün müang chiang maitr. transcription (from Northern Thai to Siamese script)TSHR Tamnan sip ha ratchawongW Wyatt (translation of PMN)WSKK Wat Si Khom Kham versionWSBR Wat Si Bun Rüang version

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0758



References

Archival MaterialHarald Hundius Collection, Passau:

æ◊Èπ«ß»“¡À“°…—µ√‘¬å∑—ßÀ≈“¬µ—Èß·µàæ√–¬“ “¡—πµ√“™‚æâπ¡“ (The chronicles of rulers since thereign of Phaña Samantalat), MS (copy). Singkha Wannasai, Lamphun, 61ff˚.

∏—¡¡–µ”π“π‡¡◊Õßæ√–¬“« [The chronicle of Phayao], MS (copy). Wat Si Khom Kham,Phayao, 54 ff˚. [PC-WSKK]

Harald Hundius Microfilm Documentation, Kiel:

æ◊Èπ«ß»“¡À“°…—µ√‘¬å∑—ßÀ≈“¬µ—Èß·µàæ√–¬“ “¡—πµ√“™‚æâπ¡“ (The chronicles of rulers since thereign of Phaña Samantalat), MS. Singkha Wannasai, Lamphun, MicrofilmCode: No. 97, Roll 17, 98 ff˚.

µ”π“π‡¡◊Õß‡™’¬ß√“¬ (The chronicle of Chiang Rai), MS. Wat Si Khom Kham, amphoeMüang, Phayao, Microfilm Code: No. 660, Roll 17, 22 ff˚.

Social Research Institute (SRI), Chiang Mai University

≈”¥—∫√“™µ√–°Ÿ≈«ß»“„π‡¡◊Õß≈â“ππ“ (Royal genealogy of Lan Na), MS. Wat Pong SanukTai, tambon Wiang Nüa, amphoe Müang, Lampang, SRI 81.069.05.038–038,101 ff˚.

æ◊Èπ‡¡◊Õß‡™’¬ß√“¬ (The chronicle of Chiang Rai), MS. Wat Pa Lan, tambon Thung Tom,amphoe San Pa Tòng, Chiang Mai, SRI 82.114.11 001–001, 27 ff˚.

µ”π“π≈â“ππ“≈â“π™â“ß (The chronicle of Lan Na and Lan Chang/Sang), MS. Wat DòiChai Mongkhon, tambon Mae Tün, amphoe Om Kòi, Chiang Mai, SRI85.144.05.136, 41 ff˚.

µ”π“π·¡à°ÿ ·≈‡¡◊Õß≈â“π™â“ß·µ° (The chronicle of [King] Mae Ku and the defeat of LanChang/Sang), MS. Wat Ban Klang, tambon Yuwa, amphoe San Pa Tòng,Chiang Mai, SRI 82.112.05.091–091, 35 ff˚.

µ”π“π‡¡◊Õß≈”æŸπ (The chronicle of Lamphun), MS. Wat Müang Mò, tambon ThungSi, amphoe Ròng Kwang, Phrae, SRI 81.066.05.062, 58 ff˚.

µ”π“πæ√–‡¡◊Õß·°â« (The chronicle of Pha/Phra Müang Kaeo), MS. Wat Si Sai Mun,tambon Nòng Còm, amphoe San Sai, Chiang Mai, SRI 80.047.05.019–019,25 ff˚.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0759

60 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


References in Asian languages

Aroonrut Wichienkeeo Õ√ÿ≥√—µπå «‘‡™’¬√‡¢’¬« 1977. °“√«‘‡§√“–Àå —ß§¡‡™’¬ß„À¡à ¡—¬√—µπ‚° ‘π∑√åµÕπµâπ µ“¡µâπ©∫—∫„∫≈“π„π¿“§‡Àπ◊Õ (An analysis of Chiang Mai society in theearly Bangkok period based on northern Thai palm-leaf manuscripts), M.A.thesis, Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.1989. ·π«§‘¥∑“ß°“√‡¡◊Õß §«“¡ —¡æ—π∏å√–À«à“ß√–∫∫æ—ππ“ √–∫∫π“¬ ‘∫ ·≈–√–∫∫™≈ª√–∑“π (Political thinking : the relationship between the panna systemand the irration system). In ‡Õ° “√ª√–°Õ∫°“√ —¡¡π“∑“ß«‘™“°“√≈â“ππ“§¥’ »÷°…“:‚≈°∑—»πå≈â“ππ“ (Document of the seminar on Lan Na studies: Lan Na worldview), Chiang Mai, 11–14 September 1989.1996a. æ®π“πÿ°√¡»—æ∑å≈â“ππ“ ‡©æ“–§”∑’Ëª√“°Ø„π„∫≈“π (The Northern Thaidictionary of palm-leaf manuscripts). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.1996b. æ®π“πÿ°√¡ ¿“…“∂‘Ëπ¿“§‡Àπ◊Õ (The Northern Thai Dictionary). ChiangMai: Chiang Mai Teachers College.

Aroonrut Wichienkeeo and Lamun Canhòm Õ√ÿ≥√—µπå «‘‡™’¬√‡¢’¬« ·≈–≈¡ÿ≈ ®—π∑πåÀÕ¡1984. √“¬ß“π«‘®—¬«‘‡§√“–Àå°ÆÀ¡“¬ ≈â“ππ“‚∫√“≥ (Analytical study of ancient LanNa customary laws) (Vol. 1). Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai Teachers’ College.

Aroonrut Wichienkeeo and David K. Wyatt Õ√ÿ≥√—µπå «‘‡™’¬√‡¢’¬« ·≈–‡¥«‘¥ ‡§. «—¬Õ“®(transcribed and edited) 2000. µ”π“πæ◊Èπ‡¡◊Õß‡™’¬ß„À¡à (The Chiang MaiChronicle). Chiang Mai: Suriwong Book Center.

Carük lan na, carük cangwat chiang rai nan phayao phrae ®“√÷°≈â“ππ“, ®“√÷°®—ßÀ«—¥‡™’¬ß√“¬ πà“π æ–‡¬“ ·æ√à (Lan Na inscriptions—Inscriptions of the provincesof Chiang Rai, Nan, Phayao and Phrae) (Part 1, Vol. 1–2) 1991. Bangkok:J. W. Thompson Foundation.

Devavisuddhavedi, Phra æ√–‡∑æ«‘ ÿ∑∏‡«∑’ 1991. çÛˆ æ—ππ“¢Õß‡¡◊Õßæ–‡¬“é (The 36 pannaof Müang Phayao). »‘≈ª«—≤π∏√√¡ (Arts and culture). Vol. 12, No. 5, March,pp. 82–87.

Dhida Saraya ∏‘¥“ “√–¬“ 1989. çª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å ‘∫ Õßæ—ππ“é (History of Sipsòng Panna).«“√ “√‡¡◊Õß‚∫√“≥ (Müang Boran Journal), Vol. 15, No. 3, July–Sept.,pp. 43–49.

Khao kawila lae tamnan müang chiang saen §à“«°“«‘≈–·≈–µ”π“π‡¡◊Õß‡™’¬ß· π (Thepoem of Kawila and the chronicle of Chiang Saen) 1985. Transcribed byUdom Rungrüangsi Õÿ¥¡ √àÿß‡√◊Õß»√’. Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai Teachers’College.

Khomnet Chetthaphatthanawanit §¡‡πµ√ ‡™…∞æ—≤π«π‘™ (ed.) 1996. ¢÷¥: ¢âÕÀâ“¡„π≈â“ππ“(Khüt: Taboos in Lan Na). Chiang Mai: Social Research Insitute, ChiangMai University.

Maharatchawong Phongsawadan phama ¡À“√“™«ß…å æß»“«¥“√æ¡à“ (The greatdynastic chronicle of Burma) 2002. Translated from the Burmese by NaiTò. Bangkok: Sinlapa-watthanatham.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0760



Mangraisat (Wat Mün Ngoen Kòng version) ¡—ß√“¬»“ µ√å - ©∫—∫«—¥À¡◊Ëπ‡ß‘π°Õß 1975.Transcribed by Sommai Premchit ¡À¡“¬ ‡ª√¡®‘µµå (Series I), Chiang Mai:Chiang Mai University.

Mingshi (Official history of the Ming Dynasty) 1974 (1736). Ed. by Zhang Tingyu.Beijing.

Mingshi Gao (Draft of the history of the Ming Dynasty) 1985 (1723). Ed. by WangHongxu, Wan Sitong, et al. Taibei.

Ming Shilu (Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty) 1961–66. Taibei (repr. 1984).Nakhòn Phannarong π§√ æ—π∏ÿå≥√ß§å. 1985. ª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å ÿ‚¢∑—¬ (History of Sukhothai),

Bangkok: Thai watthana phanit.Penth, Hans Œ—π å ‡æπ∏å, Phanphen Khrüathai æ√√≥‡æÁ≠ ‡§√◊Õ‰∑¬ and Silao Ketphrom

»√’‡≈“ ‡°…æ√À¡ 1997. ª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°≈â“ππ“ ‡≈à¡ Ò: ®“√÷°„πæ‘æ‘∏¿—≥±åœ ‡™’¬ß· π (Corpusof L¡n N¡ Inscriptions, Vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Chiang Sän Museum).Chiang Mai: Archive of Lan Na Inscriptions, Social Research Institute,Chiang Mai University.1998. ª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°≈â“ππ“ ‡≈à¡ Ú: ®“√÷°æ√–‡®â“°“«‘≈– (Corpus of L¡n N¡ Inscrip-tions, Vol. 2: King K¡wila Inscriptions). Chiang Mai: Archive of Lan NaInscriptions, Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University.1999. ª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°≈â“ππ“ ‡≈à¡ Û: ®“√÷°„πæ‘æ‘∏¿—≥±åœ ≈”æŸπ (Corpus of L¡n N¡Inscriptions, Vol. 3: Inscriptions of the Lamph¢n Museum). Chiang Mai:Archive of Lan Na Inscriptions, Social Research Institute, Chiang MaiUniversity.2000. ª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°≈â“ππ“ ‡≈à¡ Ù: ®“√÷°„πæ‘æ‘∏¿—≥±åœ ‡™’¬ß„À¡à (Corpus of L¡n N¡Inscriptions, Vol. 4: Inscriptions of the Chiang Mai Museum). Chiang Mai:Archive of Lan Na Inscriptions, Social Research Institute, Chiang MaiUniversity.2001. ª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°≈â“ππ“ ‡≈à¡ ı: ®“√÷°„πæ‘æ‘∏¿—≥±åœ πà“π ·≈–®“√÷°‡¡◊Õßπà“π∑’Ëπà“ π„®(Corpus of L¡n N¡ Inscriptions, Vol. 5: Inscriptions in the N¡n Museumand other N¡n Inscriptions). Chiang Mai: Archive of Lan Na Inscriptions,Social Research Institute, Chiang Mai University.

“Phraratcha phongsawadan chabap luang prasoet” æ√–√“™æß»“«¥“√©∫—∫À≈«ßª√–‡ √‘∞(The royal chronicle, Luang Prasoet version) 1963. In ª√–™ÿ¡æß»“«¥“√(Collected chronicles), Part 1, Vol. 1, pp. 141–171. Bangkok: Khurusapha.

Prachakitcakòracak, Phraya æ√–¬“ª√–™“°‘®°√®—°√ 71973 (1907). æß»“«¥“√‚¬π° (TheYonok chronicle), Bangkok: Khlang witthaya.

Prachum carük müang phayao ª√–™ÿ¡®“√÷°‡¡◊Õßæ–‡¬“ (Corpus of inscriptions ofPhayao) 1995. Bangkok: Sinlapa-watthanatham.

Prachum silacarük ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷° (Corpus of inscriptions) (Vols. 3–6) 1965.Bangkok: Samnak nayok ratthamontri.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0761

62 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Prachum silacarük ª√–™ÿ¡»‘≈“®“√÷° (Corpus of inscriptions) (Vol. 7) 1991. Ed. byWinai Pongsripian «‘π—¬ æß»å»√’‡æ’¬√. Bangkok: Samnak lekhathikan nayokratthamontri.

Prasoet na Nagara ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ 1978. ¡—ß√“¬»“ µ√å ©∫—∫«—¥‡ “‰Àâ (Mangraisat, WatSao Hai version). Bangkok: Saeng rung kan phim.

Prasoet na Nagara ª√–‡ √‘∞ ≥ π§√ and Puangkham Tuikhiao ª«ß§” µÿâ¬‡¢’¬« 1994.µ”π“π¡Ÿ≈»“ π“ ‡™’¬ß„À¡à ‡™’¬ßµÿß (The M¢las¡san¡ Chronicle of Chiang Maiand Chiang Tung). Bangkok: Sak sopha kan phim.

“Prawat khwaen sipsòng panna” ª√–«—µ‘·§«âπ ‘∫ Õßæ—ππ“ (History of the region inSipsòng Panna) 1982. ·∂≈ßß“πª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å ‡Õ° “√‚∫√“≥§¥’ (Historical worksand archaeological documents), Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 29–47.

Pritsana Sirinam ª√‘»π“ »‘√‘π“¡ 1973. ç§«“¡ —¡æ—π∏å√–À«à“ß‰∑¬·≈–ª√–‡∑»√“™„πÀ—«‡¡◊Õß≈“ππ“‰∑¬ ¡—¬√—µπ‚° ‘π∑√åµÕπµâπé (The relations between Thailand and itsnorthern Thai vassal states during the early Bangkok period). M.A. thesis,Bangkok: Witthayalai wicha kan süksa prasanmit.

Ratanaporn Setthakul √—µπæ√ ‡»√…∞°ÿ≈ and Renard, Ronald 1988. ç≈—«–‰∑¬ §«“¡ —¡æ—π∏å√–À«à“ß™“µ‘æ—π∏ÿå„πª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å≈â“ππ“ ¡—¬√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬é (Lua and Tai: Inter-ethnicrelations in the history of Lan Na during the Mangrai period). ‡Õ° “√ª√–°Õ∫°“√ —¡¡π“‡√◊ËÕßª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å ≈â“ππ“ ¡—¬ √“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬ æ.». Ò¯Û˘ - ÚÒÒ (Documentof the seminar on the history of Lan Na during the era of the MangraiDynasty, A.D. 1296–1558), Chiang Mai, 9–10 January 1988.

Rawiwan Phakphrot √«‘«—π ¿“§æ√µ 1982. ç°“√°—≈ªπ“„π≈â“ππ“‰∑¬µ—Èß·µà°≈“ßæÿ∑∏»µ«√√…∑’ËÚ ∂÷ßµâπæÿ∑∏»µ«√√…∑’Ë ÚÚé (Monastic endowments in Lan Na Thai from themid-20th century B.E. to the beginning of the 22nd century B.E.). M.A.thesis, Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.1988. çæÿ∑∏»“ π“°—∫°“√§«∫§ÿ¡°”≈—ß§π »÷°…“°√≥’°—≈ªπ“é (Buddhism and thecontrol of manpower: A case study of monastic endowments). In ‡Õ° “√ª√–°Õ∫°“√ —¡¡π“‡√◊ËÕßª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å≈â“ππ“ ¡—¬√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬ æ.». Ò¯Û˘ - ÚÒÒ(Document of the seminar on the history of Lan Na during the era of theMangrai Dynasty, A.D. 1296–1558), Chiang Mai, 9–10 January 1988.

Saeng Monwithun · ß ¡π«‘∑Ÿ√ (transl.) 1958. ™‘π°“≈¡“≈’ª°√≥å (Jinak¡lam¡l™-pakara¥a†). Bangkok: Krom Sinlapakòn.

Sammano prachakòn lae kheha ph.s. 2523, thua ratcha anacak ”¡–‚πª√–™“°√·≈–‡§À– æ.». 2523, ∑—Ë«√“™Õ“≥“®—°√ (Population and household census, A.D. 1980,whole kingdom) 1980. Bangkok: Samnak ngan sathiti haengchat samnaknayok ratthamontri.

Saowani Phannaphop ‡ “«≥’¬å æ√√≥“¿æ 1996. ç»÷°…“«‘‡§√“–Àå°ÆÀ¡“¬‚æ…“√“™„π∞“π–∑’Ë‡ªìπ‡Õ° “√∑“ßª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√åé (An analytical study of the Khosarat law text as anhistorical document). M.A. thesis, Sinakharinwirot University.

Saraswadee Ongsakul √— «¥’ ÕãÕß °ÿ≈ 1986. ª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å≈â“ππ“ (A history of Lan Na).Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0762



1988. ç‡¡◊Õß·≈–°“√‡¡◊Õß„π≈â“ππ“ ¡—¬√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬ æ.». Ò¯Û˘ - ÚÒÒé (Polity andpolitics in Lan Na during the era of the Mangrai Dynasty, A.D. 1296–1558).In ‡Õ° “√ª√–°Õ∫ °“√ —¡¡π“‡√◊ËÕßª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å≈â“ππ“ ¡—¬√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬ æ.». Ò¯Û˘ - ÚÒÒ(Document of the seminar on the history of Lan Na during the era of theMangrai Dynasty, A.D. 1296–1558), Chiang Mai, 9–10 January 1988.(transcibed and edited.) 1993. À≈—°∞“πª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å≈â“ππ“ ®“°‡Õ° “√§—¡¿’√å„∫≈“π·≈–æ—∫Àπ—ß “ (Documents on the history of Lan Na from palm-leaf andphapnangsa manuscripts). Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University.1995. ç«—¥‡®¥’¬åÀ≈«ß„π∞“π–‡°µÿ‡¡◊Õß¢Õß‡™’¬ß„À¡àé (Wat Chedi Luang in its role asa sign of splendour of the city). In ¡‚¿™ ˆ ªï æ√–∏“µÿ‡®¥’¬åÀ≈«ß (Celebratingthe 600 years of the Chedi Luang Stupa), ed. by Thio Wichaikhatkha∑‘« «‘™—¬¢—¥§–, pp. 79–82. Chiang Mai.1996. ª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å≈â“ππ“ (A history of Lan Na) (2nd enlarged edition).Bangkok: Amarin.

Social Research Insitute (SRI) 1981a. µ”π“πæ◊Èπ‡¡◊Õß≈â“ππ“‡™’¬ß„À¡à (The chronicle ofLan Na-Chiang Mai). Chiang Mai: SRI, Chiang Mai University.1981b. µ”π“π Òı √“™«ß»å (The chronicle of the 15 dynasties) (Vol. 1; Bundles1–2). Chiang Mai: SRI, Chiang Mai University.1982. µ”π“π Òı √“™«ß»å (The chronicle of the 15 dynasties) (Vol. 2; Bundles3–5). Chiang Mai: SRI, Chiang Mai University.

Somchot Ongsakul ¡‚™µ‘ ÕãÕß °ÿ≈ 1987. ç§«“¡‡ªìπ¡“¢Õß§” ç≈â“ππ“-≈“ππ“é „π ª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√åπ‘æπ∏å‰∑¬é (The origins of the terms Lán Na and Lan Na). ·∂≈ßß“πª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å‡Õ° “√‚∫√“≥§¥’ (Historical works and archaeological documents), Vol. 20,No. 2, July–Dec., pp. 1–19.

Sommai Premchit ¡À¡“¬ ‡ª√¡®‘µµå 1997. µ”π“π ‘∫Àâ“√“™«ß»å ©∫—∫™”√– (The Sip-haRajawong chronicle, a critical edition). Chiang Mai: Social Research Insitute,Chiang Mai University.

Somphong Witthayasakphan ¡æß»å «‘∑¬»—°¥‘Ïæ—π∏å 2001. ª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å‰∑„À≠à (History ofthe Tai Yai). Bangkok: Samnakngan kòngthun sanapsanun kan wicai.

Srisakra Vallibhotama »√’»—°√ «—≈≈‘‚¿¥¡ 1984. ‡¡◊Õßæ–‡¬“ (Müang Phayao). Bangkok:Matichon.

Sumit Pitiphat ÿ¡‘µ√ ªîµ‘æ—≤πå 1983. ç§π‰∑¬„π ‘∫ Õßªíππ“é (The Tai in Sipsòng Panna).«“√ “√∏√√¡»“ µ√å (Thammasat University Journal), Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.123–137.

Tamnan m¢las¡san¡ µ”π“π¡Ÿ≈»“ π“ (M¢las¡san¡ chronicle) 1970. Bangkok: Kromsinlapakòn.

Tamnan phün müang chiang mai µ”π“πæ◊Èπ‡¡◊Õß‡™’¬ß„À¡à (The Chiang Mai chronicle)1971. Bangkok: Samnak nayok ratthamontri.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0763

64 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Thawi Swangpanyangkoon ∑«’ «à“ßªí≠≠“ß°Ÿ√ (transcr. and ed.) 1990. çæß»“«¥“√‡¡◊Õß‡™’¬ßµÿßé (The Chiang Tung chronicle) In Àπ—ß ◊Õ·®°‡ªìπ∫—µ√æ≈’ß“π æ√–√“™∑“π‡æ≈‘ß»æ‡®â“·¡à∑‘æ«√√≥ ≥ ‡™’¬ßµÿß (Cremation volume for Cao Mae Thipphawanof Chiang Tung).

Thongthaem Nartchamnong ∑Õß·∂¡ π“∂®”πß 1989. ç∂‘Ëπ∞“π¢Õß™“«‰µ„π ‘∫ Õßæ—ππ“é (Theplaces of settlement of the Tai in Sipsòng Panna). «“√ “√‡¡◊Õß‚∫√“≥ (MüangBoran Journal), Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 51–65.

Toonsri Buanucha ∑Ÿπ»√’ ∫—«πÿ™ 1992. ç°“√»÷°…“§«“¡À¡“¬„π°ÆÀ¡“¬®“√’µ ç¡—ß√“¬»“ µ√åéé(A semantic study of the Mangraisat Customary Law). M.A. thesis, ChiangMai University.

Udom Roongruangsri Õÿ¥¡ √àÿß‡√◊Õß»√’ 1991. æ®π“πÿ°√¡≈â“ππ“-‰∑¬ ©∫—∫·¡àøÑ“À≈«ß (Lan Na-Thai dictionary, Mae Fa Luang version), 2 vols. Bangkok: Munlanithi maefa luang and Thanakhan thai phanit.

Udom Rungruangsri et al. Õÿ¥¡ √àÿß‡√◊Õß»√’ ·≈–§≥– 1995. µ”π“πæ◊Èπ‡¡◊Õß‡™’¬ß„À¡à ©∫—∫‡™’¬ß„À¡à˜ ªï (The Chiang Mai chronicle, 700th anniversary of Chiang Maiedition). Chiang Mai: Sun watthanatham cangwat chiang mai / Sathabanratchaphat chiang mai.

Usanee Thongchai Õÿ…≥’¬å ∏ß™—¬ 1983. ç§«“¡ —¡æ—π∏å√–À«à“ßÕ¬ÿ∏¬“·≈–≈“ππ“‰∑¬ æ.». Ò¯Û˘-ÚÛÒé (The relations between Ayutthaya and Lan Na, A.D. 1296–1558),M.A. thesis, Chualongkorn University.1988. ç§«“¡ —¡æ—π∏å√–À«à“ßÕ“≥“®—°√≈â“ππ“‰∑¬°—∫√—∞∑“ßµÕπ∫π „π ¡—¬√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬é(The relations between the Kingdom of Lan Na and the states in the Northduring the era of the Mangrai Dynasty). In ‡Õ° “√ª√–°Õ∫°“√ —¡¡π“‡√◊ËÕßª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å≈â“ππ“ ¡—¬√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬ æ.». Ò¯Û˘ - ÚÒÒ (Document of the seminaron the history of Lan Na during the era of the Mangrai Dynasty, A.D.1296–1558), Chiang Mai, 9–10 January 1988.

Wang Ji Min À«—ß ®’ À¡‘π 1988. ç§«“¡ —¡æ—π∏å√–À«à“ß‡¡◊Õß‡™ÕÀ≈’Ë°—∫‡¡◊Õßª“‰ªÉ´’øŸ „πæÿ∑∏»µ«√√…∑’Ë Ò˘é (The relations between Cheli and Babai-xifu in the 19th century B.E.).M.A. thesis, Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.

Winai Pongsripian «‘π—¬ æß»å»√’‡æ’¬√å (ed.) 1996. ª“‰ªÉ ’øÉŸà fi ª“‰ªÉµâ“‡µ’È¬π: ‡™’¬ß„À¡à„π ‡Õ° “√ª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å®’π‚∫√“≥ (Babai-xifu — Babai-dadian: Chiang Mai through theeyes of ancient Chinese historical documents). Bangkok: Prime Minister’sOffice.

Xin Yuanshi (New history of the Yuan Dynasty) 1930 (revised version of 1920).Ed. by Ke Shaomin. Taibei: Yiwen Publisher (repr. 1956).

Yanyong Ciranakhòn and Ratanaporn Sethakul ¬√√¬ß ®‘√–π§√ 2001. ª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å ‘∫ Õßªíππ“ (A history of Sipsòng Panna). Bangkok: Sathaban withithat.

Yuanshi (History of the Yuan Dynasty) 1953. (1370). Ed. by Song Lian. Beijing:Zhonghua Publisher (repr. 1976).

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0764



Yuphin Khemmuk ¬ÿæ‘π ‡¢Á¡¡ÿ°¥å 1988a. ç ∂“∫—π ß¶å°—∫°“√‡¡◊Õß·≈– —ß§¡≈â“ππ“ æ.». Ò˘ıÙ -ÚÒÒé (The Chiang Mai Sangha in the socio-political development of LanNa, A.D. 1411–1558). M.A. thesis, Bangkok: Silapakorn University.1988b. çæÿ∑∏»“ π“°—∫°“√æ—≤π“°“√∑“ß°“√‡¡◊Õß ¡—¬√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬é (Buddhism andpolitical developments during the era of the Mangrai Dynasty). In ‡Õ° “√ª√–°Õ∫°“√ —¡¡π“‡√◊ËÕßª√–«—µ‘»“ µ√å ≈â“ππ“ ¡—¬√“™«ß»å¡—ß√“¬ æ.». Ò¯Û˘ - ÚÒÒ (Docu-ment of the seminar on the history of Lan Na during the era of the MangraiDynasty, A.D. 1296–1558), Chiang Mai, 9–10 January 1988.

References (in Western languages)

Akin Rabibhadana 1969. The Organization of Thai Society in the Early BangkokPeriod 1782–1873 (Data Paper: No. 74, Southeast Asia Program). IthacaN.Y.: Cornell University.

Aroonrut Wichienkeeo and Gehan Wijeyewardene 1986. The Laws of King Mangrai(Mangrayathammasart). Canberra: The Richard Davis Fund.

Chamberlain, James R. 1975. “A New Look at the History and Classification of theTai Languages.” In: Studies in Tai Linguistics in Honour of William J.Gedney, ed. by J. G. Harris and J. R. Chamberlain, pp. 49–66. Bangkok:Central Instiute of English Language.

Cushing, Richard D. 2000. The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya. A synoptic transla-tion edited by David K. Wyatt. Bangkok: The Siam Society.

Condominas, Georges 1980. L’Espace social à propos de l’Asie du Sud-Est. Paris:Flammarion.

Dhida Saraya 1982. “The Development of the Northern Thai States from the Twelfthto the Fifteenth Centuries.” Ph.D. diss., University of Sydney.

Doré, Amphai 1987. “Aux sources de la civilisation lao (contribution ethno-historique à la connaissance de la culture luang-phrabanaise).” Mémoireprésenté pour le Doctorat d’État es-Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Paris.

Egerod Søren 1961. “Studies in Thai Dialectology.” In: Acta Orientalia, Vol. 26,Nos. 1–2, pp. 43–91.

Grabowsky, Volker and Andrew Turton 2003. The Gold and Silver Road of Tradeand Friendship: The McLeod and Richardson Diplomatic Missions to TaiStates in 1837. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

Griswold, Alexander B. and Prasert na Nagara 1969. “The Pact Between Sukhodayaand Nan: Epigraphic and Historical Studies, No. 3.” Journal of SiamSociety, Vol. 57, Part 1, Jan., pp. 57–107.1976. “A Fifteenth-Century Siamese Historical Poem.” Southeast AsianHistory and Historiography, ed. by C. D. Cowan and O. W. Wolters,pp. 123–163. Ithaca N.Y. and London: Cornell University Press.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0765

66 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


1977a. “The ‘Judgements of King Man Ray’: Epigraphic and HistoricalStudies No. 17.” Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 65, Part 1, Jan.,pp. 137–160.

Hinüber, Oskar von 1991. “P¡li Manuscripts as Sources of Northern ThaiBuddhism.” (unpublished manuscript).

Hucker, Charles 1985. A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Hsiao Ch’I-ch’ing 1978. The Military Establishment of the Yuan Dynasty.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Ishii, Yoneo 1978. “History and Rice-Growing.” In Thailand: A Rice-Growing So-ciety, ed. by Yoneo Ishii, pp. 15–39. Honolulu: The University Press ofHawaii.

Lee, James 1982. “Food Supply and Population Growth in Southwest China,1250–1850.” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 711–746.

Lemoine, Jacques 1987. “Tai Lue Historical Relations with China and the Shapingof the Sipsong Panna Political System.” In Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Thai Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra,3-6 July, 1987, ed. by Anne Buller, pp. 121–132.

Liew, Foon Ming 1985. “Ein Überblick über die Volkzählung und das GelbeBevölkerungsregister während der Ming-Zeit (1368–1644).” MingStudies, No. 20, pp. 48–56.1998. The Treatises on Military Affairs of the Ming Dynastic History(1368–1644). Hamburg: Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens.n.d. The Traditional Tai Polity of Lan Na and the Tai Polities Around: AnAnnotated Translation of a Collection of Records from Chinese Sourcescovering the period from 13th to 18th Centuries, in collaboration with V.Grabowsky, an expansion of the earlier manuscript entitled “The Land ofEight-hundred Daughters-in-law or Lan Na Kingdom in the Light ofOfficial Chinese Historiography—Collected Records from ChineseSources.” Unpublished manuscript.

Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund 1982. Geschichte Indiens, Stuttgart [etc.]:Kohlhammer.

Mote, F. M. 1999. Imperial China, 900–1800. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Notton, M. Camille (transl.) 1932. Annales du Siam, IIIe volume: Chronique deChiang Mai. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Penth, Hans 1994a. Jinak¡lam¡l™ Index: An Annotated Index to the Thailand Partof Ratanapañña’s Chronicle Jinak¡lam¡l™. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books,1994.1994b. A Brief History of L¡n N¡: Civilizations of North Thailand. ChiangMai: Silkworm Books.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0766



2003. “On Rice and Old Rice Fields in Old L¡n N¡.” Journal of the SiamSociety, Vol. 91, pp. 90–188.

Prasert na Nagara and A. B. Griswold 1992. Epigraphic and Historical Studies.Bangkok: The Historical Society under the Royal Patronage of H.R.H.Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn.

Ratanapañña 1968. The Sheaf of Garlands of the Epochs of the Conqueror, beinga translation of Jinak¡lam¡l™pakara¥a† (translated by N. A. Jayawickrama).London: Pali Text Society.

Reid, Anthony 1988. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450–1680, Vol. 1:The Lands below the Winds. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Rujaya Abhakorn, M.R. 1984. “Ratburi, an Inner Province: Local Government andCentral Politics in Siam, 1868–1892.” Ph.D. diss., Ithaca N.Y.: CornellUniversity.

S¡imöng Mangrai, Sao 1981. The P¡ºaeng Chronicle and the Jengtung StateChronicle Translated. (Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia,No. 19). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, Centre for South andSoutheast Asian Studies.

Saveng Phinith 1987. Contribution à l’histoire du royaume de Luang Prabang.Paris: École Française d’Extrême-Orient.

Shorto, H. L. 1963. “The 32 Myos in the Medieval Mon Kingdom.” Bulletin of theSchool of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 572–591.

Sila Viravong, Maha. 1964. History of Laos, New York: Paragon Book ReprintCorporation.

Stuart-Fox, Martin 1998. The Lao Kingdom of L¡n X¡ng: Rise and Decline.Bangkok: White Lotus.

Sun Laichen 2000. “Ming-Southeast Asian overland interactions, c. 1368–1644.”Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan.

Tambiah, Stanley, J. 1976. World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Study ofBuddhism and Polity in Thailand against a Historical Background.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wade, Geoffrey Philip 1997. “Some Topoi in Southern Border HistoriographyDuring the Ming (And Their Modern Relevance)”, in: China and herNeighbours: Border Visions of the Other, Foreign Policy 10th to 19th

Century, ed. by Sabine Dabringhaus and Roderich Ptak. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, pp. 135–158.2000. “The ‘Ming Shi-lu as a source for Southeast Asian history - Four-teenth to Seventeenth Centuries.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, Vol.21, No. 2, pp. 249–294.

Wood, W. A. R. 1924. A History of Siam. Bangkok: Chalermnit Press.Wyatt, David K. (transl. and ed.) 1994. The Nan Chronicle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Southeast

Asia Program, Cornell University.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0767

68 VOLKER GRABOWSKY


Wyatt, David K. and Aroonrut Wichienkeeo 1995. The Chiang Mai Chronicle.Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.

JSS 2005-P001-068 6/8/05, 16:0768